Who Killed Cock Robin? A Retrospective on the Bork Nomination and a Reply to Jaffa Divides the House by Robert L. Stone

In an utterance that may have changed the history of the United States, and of the world, Lincoln argued that the grounds upon which one opposed the extension of slavery into the territories was inseparable from opposition to slavery itself. Similarly, I maintain that the ground upon which one argues for a constitutional jurisprudence of original intent is inseparable from such a jurisprudence. No one has ever formulated the doctrine of original intent jurisprudence with greater perspicacity or eloquence than did Chief Justice Taney in his opinion in Dred Scott. Furthermore, his judgment that a property interest in slaves in the Territories was guaranteed by the original intent of the Constitution is reasonable if one takes the text and history of the Constitution, apart from its moral grounding in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, as the guide to that intent

What Were the Original Intentions of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States?

This Article explains how the doctrine of original intent might be defended as the basis for interpreting the Constitution. The deepest political differences in American history have always been differences concerning the meaning of the Constitution, whether as originally intended, or as amended. Since the Civil War, the debate has often taken the form of a dispute over whether or not the Civil War amendments, notably the fourteenth, have changed the way in which the whole Constitution, and not only the amended parts, is read or interpreted. It is not possible to even discuss how or whether the Civil War amendments transformed the original Constitution without saying first of all what the original Constitution was, which this Article seeks to do. Appendix A explores Attorney General Meese’s views on original intent, while Appendix B focuses on the Declaration of Independence to shed light on the original intent debate. Finally, Appendix C addresses the paradox that those who today most aggressively appeal to the doctrine of original intent are among its most resolute antagonists

Judicial Conscience and Natural Rights: A Reply to Professor Ledewitz

In our Spring 1987 issue, Professor Jaffa authored an essay in which he posited that the fundamental principles of equality and other tenets of natural law expressed in the Declaration of Independence were originally intended to be the principles of the Constitution of 1787 Professor Jaffa asserted that while the Framers believed in the law of nature and nature\u27s God, many contemporary constitutional thinkers, including fellow conservatives Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Attorney General Edwin Meese, do not. Thus, Jaffa argued, those conservatives who today most aggressively appeal to the doctrine of original intent are among its most resolute antagonists. In a responsive article, Professor Bruce Ledewitz, described what he considered to be a gap in Jaffa\u27s essay between the consciousness of the Framers and the practice of judicial review today. According to Professor Ledewitz, Jaffa provided no insight into how today\u27s judges, by relying on the principles of the Declaration of Independence whether they believe in self-evident truths or not, might actually resolve disputes concerning the implications of equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For Professor Ledewitz, the ultimate question is, What sort of jurisprudence would result from a modern commitment to the natural law principles of the Declaration of Independence? A question, he asserted, Jaffa did not expressly resolve. In the following essay, Professor Jaffa rejoins Professor Ledewitz in this timely and provocative exchange

Judicial Conscience and Natural Rights: A Reply to Professor Ledewitz

In our Spring 1987 issue, Professor Jaffa authored an essay in which he posited that the fundamental principles of equality and other tenets of natural law expressed in the Declaration of Independence were originally intended to be the principles of the Constitution of 1787 Professor Jaffa asserted that while the Framers believed in the law of nature and nature\u27s God, many contemporary constitutional thinkers, including fellow conservatives Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Attorney General Edwin Meese, do not. Thus, Jaffa argued, those conservatives who today most aggressively appeal to the doctrine of original intent are among its most resolute antagonists. In a responsive article, Professor Bruce Ledewitz, described what he considered to be a gap in Jaffa\u27s essay between the consciousness of the Framers and the practice of judicial review today. According to Professor Ledewitz, Jaffa provided no insight into how today\u27s judges, by relying on the principles of the Declaration of Independence whether they believe in self-evident truths or not, might actually resolve disputes concerning the implications of equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For Professor Ledewitz, the ultimate question is, What sort of jurisprudence would result from a modern commitment to the natural law principles of the Declaration of Independence? A question, he asserted, Jaffa did not expressly resolve. In the following essay, Professor Jaffa rejoins Professor Ledewitz in this timely and provocative exchange

Seven Answers for Professor Anastaplo

Professor Jaffa responds to seven questions from Professor Anastaplo

In the name of the people: speeches and writings of Lincoln and Douglas in the Ohio campaign of 1859

(print) x, 307 p. ; 22 cmIntroduction -- The Setting 1 -- The Issues 34 -- The Dividing Line between Federal and Local Authority, by Stephen A. Douglas Harper's Magazine, September, 1859 58 -- Speech of Stephen A. Douglas at Columbus, Ohio, September 7, 1859 126 -- Speech of Stephen A. Douglas at Cincinnati, Ohio, September 9, 1859 151 -- Observations on Senator Douglas' Views of Popular Sovereignty, by Jeremiah Black September 10, 1859 173 -- Speech of Stephen A. Douglas at Wooster, Ohio, September 16, 1859 200 -- Speech of Abraham Lincoln at Columbus, Ohio, September 16, 1859 231 -- Speech of Abraham Lincoln at Cincinnati, Ohio, September 17, 1859 27

Book Review: Sexual Orientation and the Law. by Richard D. Mohr.

Book review: Sexual Orientation and the Law. By Richard D. Mohr. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 1988. Pp. 357. Reviewed by: Harry V. Jaffa