Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:01:45.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religion and the First Amendment: An Inquiry Into the Presuppositions of the ‘Jurisprudence of Original Intention’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

James McBride
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his July 1985 speech before the American Bar Association House of Delegates, Attorney General Edwin Meese provoked a storm of controversy by suggesting that the Supreme Court's decisions ought to be guided by a “jurisprudence of original intention.” This position of constitutional interpretation, coined “originalism” by the constitutional scholar Paul Brest, was considered by Meese to be “the only reliable guide for judgment.” Accordingly, the Reagan administration would press the High Court to adopt such a hermeneutical approach by selecting nominees who espoused intentionalist views—most notably in the nomination of William Rehnquist and Robert H. Bork to be Chief Justice and Associate Justice respectively.

In a highly unusual public reaction to the Attorney General's remarks, Justice William Brennan, the High Court's senior justice with 31 years of service, commented that Meese's call for a “jurisprudence of original intention” arose from “a debate about how to read a text ….” However, the very question of hermeneutical approach (which even Robert Bork took seriously) struck Mr. Meese as “liberal dogma;” for the Attorney General, reading constitutional provisions is just not problematic. “The meaning of the constitution can be known,” he insists. Justices must simply resist the temptation to superimpose their own agenda upon the nation's founding documents. Advocating the “common sense” approach of epistemological empiricism, Meese seems to suggest a literalist reading of the constitution which effortlessly brings to light its meaning “deposited” by the Framers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , 1988 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Meese, , The Supreme Court of the United States: Bulwark afa Limited Constitution, 27 S. Tex. L.J. 455, 464 (1986)Google Scholar.

2. Brest, , The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 B.U.L. Rev. 204 (1983)Google Scholar.

3. Meese, supra note 1, at 466.

4. Both men were widely perceived as originalists—a position long advocated by Robert Bork and reiterated in his November 1985 speech to the University of San Diego Law School: “Original intent is the only legitimate basis for constitutional decision … The only way in which the Constitution can constrain judges is if the judges interpret the document's words according to the intentions of those who drafted, proposed and ratified its provisions and various amendments.” Likewise, conservatives have interpreted Chief Justice Rehnquist's preference for the “written” rather than “living” Constitution and his allusions to the “original understanding of Philadelphia” (Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 778 (1977)) as indicative of an originalist position. See Rehnquist, , The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 Tex. L. Rev. 693 (1976)Google Scholar. Harry Jaffa, the most noted conservative constitutional historian, has cited statements by Rehnquist that seem to belie this conclusion. “They [constitutional safeguards] assume a general social acceptance neither because of any intrinsic worth nor because of any unique origins in someone's idea of natural justice but instead simply because they have been incorporated in a constitution by the people.” See id. at 704. Jaffa concludes that “[n]o one can, at one and the same time, be a legal positivist and an adherent of the original intentions of the Framers.” Jaffa, , What Were the ‘Original Intentions’ of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States?, 10 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 351 (1987)Google Scholar.

5. Brennan, , The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification, 27 S. Tex. L.J. 433 (1986)Google Scholar.

6. Meese, , Construing the Constitution, 19 U. Calif. Davis L. Rev. 22 (1985)Google Scholar.

7. See id. at 24.

8. In this respect Attorney General Meese shares the scientistic epistemology of his political allies on the Religious Right whose Biblicist hermeneutic suggests that not only should a text be taken as literally as possible but also that any other interpretation contravenes common sense, i.e., it is “unscientific” and “disingenuous.” See Mcbride, J., Reagan and the Religious Right: The Constitution According to Biblicist Hermeneutics (prepared for private circulation 1986)Google Scholar.

9. Meese, supra note 1, at 462.

10. Stevens, , The Supreme Court of the United States: Reflections After a Summer Recess, 27 S. Tex. L.J. 447, 452 (1986)Google Scholar.

11. Berger, R., Government by Judiciary. The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment 363 (1977)Google Scholar.

12. Cf. Powell, , The Original Understanding of Original Intent, 98 Harvard L. Rev. 885 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Berger, , ‘Original Intention’ in Historical Perspective, 54 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 296 (1986)Google Scholar.

13. Meese, supra note 6, at 28.

14. The term “moderate interpretivism” was recently introduced into the discussion by Fallon, Richard H., Fallon, , A Constructivist Coherence Theory of Constitutional Interpretation, 100 Harvard L. Rev. 1189, 2177 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Trubek, , Where the Action Is: Critical Legal Studies and Empiricism, 36 Stan. L. Rev. 575, 578 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. Commager, , The Constitution and Original Intent, The Center Magazine 4, 7 (11-December 1986)Google Scholar.

17. Syrett, H.C., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 111 (1965)Google Scholar.

18. Berger, supra note 11, at 371.

19. South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448-49 (1905), cited in Munzer and Nickel, , Does the Constitution Mean What It Always Meant?, 77 Colum. L. Rev. 1029, 1042 (1977)Google Scholar.

20. Bork, , Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L.J. 1, 3 (1971)Google Scholar.

21. The Autobiographical Notes of Charles Evans Hughes 143 (Danelski, D. & Tulchin, J. eds. 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Wolfe, , How the Constitution Was Taken Out of Constitutional Law, 19 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 597, 599 (1987)Google Scholar.

23. Brennan, supra note 5, at 433.

24. Tepker, , ‘The Defects of Better Motives’: Reflections of Mr. Meese's Jurisprudence of Original Intention, 39 Okla. L.Rev. 1, 26 (1986)Google Scholar.

25. Miller, , An Inquiry Into the Relevance of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers, With Special Emphasis Upon the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, 27 Ark. L. Rev. 584, 595 (1973)Google Scholar. John Whitehead claims that “the concept perpetrated today in Constitutional law that the Constitution is an evolving document is a concept foreign to the Framers.” Whitehead, J., The Second American Revolution 204 (1982)Google Scholar.

26. Simon, , The Authority of the Framers of the Constitution: Can Originalist Interpretation be Justified?, 73 Calif. L. Rev. 1482, 1498 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. Grey, , Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?, 27 Stan. L. Rev. 703 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Garet, , Comparative Normative Hermeneutics: Scripture, Literature, Constitution, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. 35, 55 (1985)Google Scholar.

29. Bennett, , Judges and Original Intent. Attacks on Judicial Activism, Trial 60, 65 (1986)Google ScholarPubMed.

30. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 163 (1879).

31. Healey, Robert M., “Thomas Jefferson's ‘Wall’: Absolute or Serpentine?” presented before the “Religion in the Courts” Consultation, American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 11, 1986Google Scholar.

32. “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ Reynolds v. United States, supra note 31, at 164.” Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947).

33. “We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.” See supra note 32, at 18.

34. “The Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.” See supra note 32, at 16.

35. Id. at 15.

36. See McCollum v. Bd. of Educ, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952); Torasco v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961); Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); and Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1962).

37. Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 676 (1970).

38. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 688 (1984).

39. Swomley, J., Religious Liberty and the Secular State. The Constitutional Context 72 (1987)Google Scholar.

40. Buckley, Jr., Foreword, in Cord, R., Separation of Church and State. Historical Fact and Current Fiction ix (1982)Google Scholar.

41. “The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislators of the state as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940). “The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the ‘establishment of religion’ clause.” See supra note 32, at 15.

42. Cord, supra note 40, at 49.

43. Meese, supra note 1, at 463.

44. Berger, supra note 11, at 412-13.

45. Berger, supra note 11, at 413.

46. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 106 (1985).

47. Cord, supra note 40, at 47.

48. Cord, supra note 40, at 37ff.

49. Meese, supra note 1, at 463. Cf. statement by the late spokesman for the evangelical right, Francis Schaeffer, “To have suggested to these men a viable state separate from religious influence would have utterly amazed them.” Schaeffer, , Humanism vs. Religious Freedom: A Time to Act in Freedom and Faith. The Impact of Law on Religious Liberty 39 (Buzzard, L. ed. 1982)Google Scholar.

50. See supra note 46, at 99.

51. Cord, supra note 40, at 82.

52. Whitehead, J.W., The Second American Revolution (1982)Google Scholar.

53. Levy, L., The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment 221 (1986)Google Scholar.

54. Swomley, supra note 39, at 26.

55. Levy, supra note 53, at 91ff.

56. Swomley, supra note 39, at 38.

57. Grey, , The Constitution as Scripture, 37 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 14 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. Bork, supra note 20, at 3.

59. Simon, supra note 26, at 1487.

60. Tribe, L., American Constitutional Law 47 (1978)Google Scholar.

61. Dreisbach, , Constitutional Interpretation and Framers' Intent, 4 The Rutherford Institute Magazine 3, 12 (07-September 1987)Google Scholar.

62. Meese, supra note 1, at 466.

63. Wills, G., Inventing America 259 (1978)Google Scholar.

64. Jaffa, supra note 4, at 354.

65. Bennett, , Judicial Activism and the Concept of Original Intent, 69 Judicature 219, 223 (12-January 1986)Google Scholar.

66. Jefferson Powell contends that Madison distinguished between what he called “the true meaning” of the constitution from “whatever may have been the opinions entertained in forming the Constitution.” Powell, supra note 12, at 938. However, cf. Raoul Berger's long citation of another Madison statement: “If the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the Nation … be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable government, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers.” Berger, supra note 11, at 3.

67. Levy, supra note 53, at xv.

68. Levy, id.

69. Meese, supra note 1, at 466, n.60.

70. See Commager, supra note 16, at 11 and Bennett, supra note 65, at 222. Also the comments of Justice Robert H. Jackson: “Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as dreams. Joseph was called upon to interpret for the Pharaoh. A century and a half of partisan debates and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each and every side of any and every question.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

71. Simon, supra note 26, at 1942. Cf. Tribe, , Why should their mere intentions matter?Constitutional Choices 4 (1985)Google Scholar. Also Garet, , Comparative Normative Hermeneutics: Scripture, Literature, Constitution, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. 35, 118 (1985)Google Scholar; Levy, supra note 53, at 185; and McAfee, , Constitutional Interpretation: The Uses and Limitations of Original Intent, 12 U. Dayton L. Rev. 275, 294 (1986)Google Scholar.

72. Brennan, supra note 5, at 434.

73. Id. at 438.

74. Id. at 442.

75. Bork, supra note 20, at 3. This logical flaw in the moderate interpretivist position is summarized by F. Gordon Keckeissen as follows: “To reduce the problem to logic, this is tantamount to moving invalidly from the statement that ‘certain basic values are embodied in the Constitution,’ to the universal proposition that ‘all basic values are embodied in the Constitution,’ so that the otherwise valid instantiation of the statement, ‘therefore, basic value ‘D’ is implicit in the Constitution’ can then be made. If arguments were permitted to be constructed in this way, virtually any statement could be ‘derived’ from any text.” Keckeissen, , On the Possibility of an Epistemological Approach to Constitutional Interpretation, 91 Dick. L. Rev. 747, 748–49 (1987)Google Scholar.

76. Brennan, supra note 5, at 436.

77. McAfee, supra note 71, at 289.

78. Rehnquist, supra note 4, at 695.

79. Schaeffer, supra note 49, at 45.

80. Berger, supra note 11, at 412.

81. Carter, , Constitutional Adjudication and the Indeterminate Text: A Preliminary Defense of an Imperfect Muddle, 94 Yale L.J. 821, 825 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82. “Not much American legal work can be said to directly reflect the difficult journey through Saussure, Levi Strauss, Lacan, Barthes, the early Foucault or even more obscure Gallic alleyways.” Heller, , Structuralism and Critique, 36 Stan. L. Rev. 127 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, see particularly volume 58 of the S. Cal. L. Rev.

83. Man, P. De, Blindness and Insight. Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism 107 (1983)Google Scholar.

84. Derrida, J., Of Grammatology 159 (Spivak, G.C. trans. 1984)Google Scholar.

85. Id. at 138.

86. Derrida, , Signature, Event, Context, 1 Glyph 172, 192 (1977)Google Scholar.

87. De Man, supra note 83, at 108.

88. Tribe, L., God Save This Honorable Court. How The Supreme Court Justices Shape Our History 43 (1985)Google Scholar.

89. Tribe, supra note 72, at 4.

90. Unger, , The Critical Legal Studies Movement, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 561, 675 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91. Derrida, supra note 84, at 162.

92. Tribe, supra note 71 at, 4.

93. Man, P. De, Allegories of Reading. Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke and Proust 245 (1983)Google Scholar.

94. Hutchinson, , Alien Thoughts: A Comment on Constitutional Scholarship, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. 701, 711 (1985)Google Scholar.

95. Fiss, , Objectivity and Interpretation, 34 Stan. L. Rev. 739, 740 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96. Hoy, , Interpreting the Text: Hermeneutical and Post-Structuralist Perspectives, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. 135, 168 (1985)Google Scholar.

97. Brennan, supra note 5, at 434.

98. Carter, supra note 81, at 854.

99. “Let us stop denying it.” Bennett, , Judges and Original Intent. Attacks on Judicial Activism, Trial 60, 66 (04 1986)Google ScholarPubMed. See Jones, , Accommodationist and Separationist Ideals in Supreme Court Establishment Clause Decisions, 28 Journal of Church and State 193, 223 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richards, , Constitutional Adjudication and Democratic Theory, 56 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 259, 276 (1981)Google Scholar; and Simon, supra note 26, at 1487.

100. Chivigny, , Why the Continental Disputes are Important: A Comment on Hoy and Garet, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. 199, 207 (1985)Google Scholar.