PDF Summary:The Year of Living Constitutionally, by A.J. Jacobs

How does the U.S. Constitution — a document created by America's founders over 230 years ago — apply to modern society? In The Year of Living Constitutionally, A.J. Jacobs explores this timely and relevant question. He examines the origins of the Constitution, tracing the intent of the Founding Fathers and their revolutionary vision for governing the new nation. Then, he analyzes how these original constitutional interpretations have evolved, in step with the country's growth and societal changes.

Jacobs examines ongoing debates over originalism versus progressivism, as scholars and justices grapple with the timeless question: Should the Constitution adapt to meet modern challenges, or must America adhere strictly to the Framers' original intent? This history offers insight into maintaining the Constitution's integrity while addressing complex issues like civil rights, military powers, and the modern administrative state.

(continued)...

The framers of the Constitution regarded it as an evolving document rather than an immutable set of instructions.

Jacobs emphasizes the view that the Constitution represents an ongoing experiment in self-rule, rather than a static blueprint for a perfect society. The Constitution's architects were aware that they could not foresee all eventualities and accepted that the document would require modifications to meet emerging challenges.

Moreover, the Founders' establishment of a method to amend the Constitution indicates their understanding that it was meant to evolve with the passage of time. They recognized government as a creation of mankind, not as an edict from the heavens.

The architects of our nation were celebrated for their openness to a variety of viewpoints and their adaptability in modifying their positions when necessary.

Jacobs highlights the diversity of thought and discussions that were pivotal during the assembly that crafted the United States' cornerstone charter. Delegates from diverse states, each bringing their distinct viewpoints shaped by their regional affiliations and economic statuses, convened to lay the foundations for governing, apportioning power, and supervising the nascent country. They frequently held contrasting views yet were willing to compromise in order to reach a workable solution.

Additionally, Jacobs highlights instances where influential figures from the formative years of the country shifted their positions on important issues, demonstrating their ability to adapt in the face of fresh encounters and changing circumstances. The author notes an occasion when James Madison, frequently acknowledged as the main designer of the Constitution, initially opposed the addition of a Bill of Rights. He ultimately revised his stance, acknowledging the importance of considering the perspectives of the dissenters, which led him to support the changes to the nation's foundational legal document. The author also emphasizes tales such as the declaration issued by Madison during his final moments. Over time, the details of how his viewpoint developed have become less clear. The essential lesson is clear: those who established the foundation of the United States championed the capacity for intellectual growth and advancement in their most iconic and distinctly American capacities.

The viewpoints regarding the distribution of authority between state governments and the federal government as originally conceived by the nation's founders.

This segment of the conversation explores the ongoing debate about how power is allocated between the federal and state governments, a debate that dates back to the country's founding. Jacobs highlights the challenge of aligning the varied viewpoints of the nation's founders with the evolving needs of a complex and multifaceted country.

The framers of the Constitution had varying opinions on how power should be allocated between the federal government and the states.

Jacobs highlights the varying perspectives on federalism held by the founding leaders, recognizing their commitment to establishing a strong, unified nation while remaining wary of centralized power. Some individuals, including Alexander Hamilton, were in favor of bolstering the central government's power to effectively address national concerns. Apprehensions emerged over the possibility that an excess of state power might undermine the country's steadiness and its ability to act decisively in matters of commerce, security, and foreign affairs.

Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Declaration of Independence, was a strong supporter of powerful state governments as a safeguard against federal overreach. They believed that amassing too much power in the hands of the national government could diminish individual liberties and lead to a domineering, possibly despotic, central authority.

The architects of the United States' foundation acknowledged both the benefits and the inherent dangers of a robust governmental structure.

Jacobs acknowledges the Founding Fathers' intricate views on the distribution of authority between state and federal levels, noting their awareness of the advantages and disadvantages associated with robust state governance. They acknowledged the value of embracing diverse governing styles and local contributions, which could foster innovation, pilot projects, and a sense of community. Local municipal authorities typically have a higher proficiency in addressing issues specific to their area and in meeting the needs of the residents they serve.

On the other hand, they were worried that powerful local governments could undermine the unity of the country, hinder progress on important matters of national interest, and lead to a patchwork of regulations that are not only disparate but might also be biased. Jacobs points to the time under the Articles of Confederation as an example of when states possessed excessive power. The governance structure set up by the Articles was soon found to be inadequate and was therefore replaced by the Constitution. The United States' cornerstone document strengthened the federal government while still maintaining considerable independence for the states.

The founders of our country emphasized the importance of public well-being, civic duties, and the development of ethical character.

In this segment of the story, the writer explores the founders' perspective on the emerging nation, highlighting the significance of shared responsibility and joint participation in civic duties. Jacobs explores the transition from traditional values to an emphasis on individuality and its impact on transforming our political landscape and the practice of democratic governance.

The nation's founders greatly valued civic participation and a strong commitment to the welfare of the community.

Jacobs emphasizes the critical importance the creators of the Constitution placed on the principle of civic virtue as a foundational element for a strong republic. Individuals must place the common good above their own interests and take an active role in shaping their nation's destiny. Self-governance was not only seen as a right but also as a responsibility by them.

They understood that a society could not function effectively if its members were solely motivated by selfish desires and a narrow pursuit of individual gain. They saw civic virtue, manifested in public service, active citizenship, and a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good, as crucial to maintaining a free and prosperous society. The cornerstone of community stability was frequently credited to the concept of service.

The nation's founders were wary of unbridled self-interest, understanding that it could threaten the country's welfare.

Jacobs highlights the concerns that the Founding Fathers had about personal interests affecting political issues. They feared that an excessive emphasis on personal liberty might erode the ties that bind society, resulting in a diminished emphasis on collective well-being and fostering an environment where self-interest overshadows the ideals of fairness, equal chances, and the overall health of the community.

While recognizing the importance of individual liberties, they believed that in the absence of adequate regulation, self-interest could lead to a lack of cohesion, instability, and the breakdown of social contracts. They sought to balance individual liberties with communal responsibilities, ensuring that the pursuit of personal happiness did not compromise the collective well-being of society.

The founders were determined to instill a strong sense of duty towards public responsibilities.

Jacobs examines the way in which the architects of the American government wove the principle of civic duty into its foundational framework. They underscored the importance of learning, encouraged open conversations, and were united in their commitment to the well-being of everyone. They aimed to establish a government that would not only answer to its citizens but also effectively tackle the nation's challenges.

The vitality and prosperity of a democratic republic hinge on the active engagement and thorough knowledge of its citizens. They were convinced that lasting stability and prosperity could be achieved by encouraging a public dialogue that was knowledgeable and committed to core principles, thereby balancing individual self-interest.

Other Perspectives

• While the Constitution's framers intended it to be an evolving document, some argue that this flexibility has led to interpretations that stray far from the original intent, potentially undermining the stability of the legal system.
• The idea that the founders were uniformly open to a variety of viewpoints may be challenged by the fact that many groups, including women, enslaved people, and indigenous populations, were excluded from the political process and their viewpoints were not represented.
• The adaptability of the founders in modifying their positions when necessary can be seen as a pragmatic approach, but it also raises questions about the consistency and integrity of their principles, especially when such changes were driven by political pressure or personal gain.
• The debate on the distribution of power between the federal government and the states continues to be contentious, with some arguing that the balance has tipped too far towards federal power, infringing on states' rights and individual freedoms.
• The acknowledgment of the benefits and dangers of a robust governmental structure by the founders is sometimes criticized as having laid the groundwork for an overly powerful federal government that could threaten personal liberties.
• The emphasis on public well-being and civic duties by the founders is sometimes seen as at odds with the individualistic ethos that has come to dominate American culture, leading to a decline in civic engagement and a focus on individual rights at the expense of community responsibilities.
• The founders' wariness of unbridled self-interest is often contrasted with the capitalist ethos that has shaped the American economy, where self-interest is frequently seen as a positive driving force for innovation and economic growth.
• The strong sense of duty towards public responsibilities promoted by the founders may be criticized for not fully accounting for the diverse motivations and interests of individuals in a pluralistic society, potentially leading to a one-size-fits-all approach to citizenship and public service.

Discussions on the scope of governmental authority, the handling of military operations, and the protection of individual freedoms.

This section of the text examines several highly contentious political issues and their impact on the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Jacobs explores how the Constitution is sometimes incorrectly used in issues related to achieving racial equality, defining the extent of military power, and the rise of modern government administration.

The continuous endeavor to expand civil liberties through a broader interpretation of the Constitution.

The passage explores the development of civil liberties in the United States, emphasizing how the Constitution, once a document that codified racial and gender inequalities, has been reinterpreted to expand rights and promote a more inclusive and fair society. Jacobs highlights the continuous struggle for equality in the United States, observing that the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution have alternately advanced and obstructed this goal.

Initially, the Constitution's scope was narrow, excluding many groups, yet it has gradually expanded to encompass a broader spectrum of the population.

Jacobs emphasizes the unsettling reality that the initial framework of the Constitution contained clauses that perpetuated slavery and denied full citizenship rights to women and people of color. However, he also underscores the Constitution's role in molding a depiction of American society that has become increasingly inclusive and fair, realized by embracing changes to its amendments and forward-thinking elucidations.

He emphasizes the critical role of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments in abolishing slavery, guaranteeing legal equality, and conferring upon African American men the privilege of participating in elections. He explores the historical journey toward female empowerment, which includes the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteeing women's suffrage throughout the United States, along with the continuous pursuit of legal equality irrespective of gender.

Debates centered on the meaning of the equal protection clause provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Jacobs delves into the vigorous debates surrounding the clause that ensures equality, an essential element that has been instrumental in advancing civil liberties. Initially intended to protect the freedoms of African American men following their emancipation, the provision has since become a fundamental component supporting the judicial rights of diverse underrepresented groups, including women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people with disabilities.

He explores the methods used by proponents of a living Constitution to recognize rights that are implied but not explicitly stated, while originalists strive to align the document's original public meaning with an expansive view of equal rights. Jacobs delves into the debate over the validity of same-sex marriage, highlighting that figures such as Scalia, who support a conventional interpretation, argued that the framers of the amendment did not anticipate the concept of marriage equality, while advocates pointed to the fundamental principle of equal protection inherent in the amendment.

The balance of military power is maintained between the executive branch and Congress.

This section explores the evolving dynamics of authority in the context of warfare, emphasizing the trend of modern presidents acquiring increased independence in making military decisions. Jacobs contrasts the Founders' intent to give Congress primacy in war-making decisions with the modern-day reality of a more powerful executive branch wielding significant military control.

The founders of the United States intended for the power to declare war to primarily reside with Congress.

Jacobs emphasizes how the founders deliberately distributed the responsibilities related to the military across different governmental branches. The creators of the Constitution endowed the governmental branch most in tune with the citizenry with the authority to commence hostilities and distribute funds for military operations. The choice to send American troops into combat ought not to rest on the shoulders of a single person.

Jacobs highlights the deep-seated concerns of the nation's early architects about the centralization of power, especially in matters of war, fears that originated from their experiences with British royal dominance. They aimed to create a governance structure that maintained a balance of power among the different branches, particularly underlining the significance of this balance in decision-making during times of military engagement.

The capacity to initiate military operations has progressively shifted into the domain of modern presidents over time.

Throughout the period in question, the writer observes a considerable growth in the influence wielded by the president regarding military operations. Despite the cessation of World War II, presidents have frequently engaged military forces without a direct mandate from the legislative branch, even though there has been no formal declaration of war by Congress. The need for swift action in response to an ever-evolving global landscape is the rationale behind this approach.

Additionally, following the 9/11 attacks, legislation like the Authorization for Military Engagement was enacted, providing presidents with extensive discretion to launch military actions in response to terrorist threats. Throughout the last century, the centralization of war-related powers has raised concerns, alarming numerous individuals including Jacobs, because of the significant empowerment of a single person.

Debates focus on the compatibility of the Constitution's core principles with the modern administrative state.

This section addresses a key area of contention in constitutional interpretation: the modern administrative state, a vast network of federal agencies that regulate every aspect of American life, from food safety to environmental protection to financial markets. Jacobs explores the contentious issues related to the efficiency of the administrative system and situations where it has overstepped its bounds within the framework of modern American governance.

Proponents of originalism argue that federal agencies exceed their constitutional limits.

Jacobs addresses the core criticisms from originalists regarding the bureaucratic apparatus, highlighting their argument that these entities inappropriately wield powers of law-making, powers that ought to be solely in the hands of Congress. The argument posits that only the democratically elected lawmakers have the authority granted by the Constitution to create laws, as opposed to permitting non-elected individuals with scant accountability to the populace to undertake such actions.

The doctrine known as "nondelegation" asserts that the language of the Constitution prohibits Congress from delegating its lawmaking authority to other branches of government. Entities with the power to establish regulations are often seen by originalists to be in conflict with this principle. The expansion of executive power disturbs the equilibrium designed by the division of governmental responsibilities, allowing appointed officials to implement their policy preferences without sufficient scrutiny from democratic procedures.

Advocates maintain that the intricate nature of modern challenges justifies the creation of a structured governmental administrative system.

Jacobs explores the reasoning behind the support for a strong administrative framework, highlighting the need to address complex modern challenges that require specialized expertise and flexibility. The contention is that legislative entities lack the necessary capabilities and means to effectively oversee swiftly evolving industries such as pharmaceuticals, energy generation, or artificial intelligence, which justifies the delegation of regulatory powers to agencies equipped with the requisite specialized knowledge.

Supporters of the intricate system of regulatory agencies emphasize their crucial role in upholding public health and safety, promoting economic steadiness, and protecting the environment. Federal institutions are essential in managing emergencies effectively, safeguarding against corporate power abuse, and promoting the nation's welfare.

Aims to balance the sway of regulatory bodies with the governing power held by legislative institutions.

Jacobs explores the challenge of ensuring that presidential power expands in harmony with the principles held dear by staunch defenders of the Constitution's core intentions, while also recognizing the need for an effective government structure to address modern challenges. Certain proponents argue that the legislative arm should impose more rigorous oversight responsibilities, requiring agencies to justify their regulations and subjecting them to more regular scrutiny by legislative members. Officials are urged to create more detailed rules to guarantee that agencies strictly follow the intended goals set by the legislature.

Some suggest enhancing openness and responsibility by mandating that governmental bodies clarify their regulatory processes and offer more comprehensive explanations for their rules. This method aims to harmonize the necessity for specialized knowledge and adaptability in agencies with the fundamental objective of maintaining democratic supervision and bolstering confidence among the populace.

Other Perspectives

• The Constitution's reinterpretation to expand civil liberties may sometimes extend beyond the text's original meaning, potentially undermining the rule of law and the intentions of the framers.
• The argument that the Constitution has become more inclusive over time may overlook the perspective that some groups still feel underrepresented or that progress has been uneven.
• The role of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments in advancing civil rights can be seen as incomplete, as systemic inequalities persist despite these amendments.
• The effectiveness of the Nineteenth Amendment in granting women's suffrage can be critiqued on the grounds that voting rights alone do not ensure gender equality in other areas.
• The application of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to various groups may be contested by those who believe it should be interpreted more narrowly, in line with originalist perspectives.
• The debate over the interpretation of the equal protection clause may also include arguments that judicial activism has led to overreach in civil liberties protections.
• The intent of the founders regarding war powers can be challenged by the practical needs of modern national security, which may necessitate a more agile executive branch.
• The increase in presidential authority over military operations could be defended on the grounds of efficiency and the need to respond quickly to international threats.
• Criticisms of the centralization of war-related powers might not fully account for the complexities of international relations and the need for decisive leadership.
• The criticism of federal agencies exceeding constitutional limits may not consider the necessity of delegating certain powers to address specialized and technical issues.
• The originalist argument against the modern administrative state may not take into account the practicalities of governing a complex, modern nation.
• The doctrine of "nondelegation" could be seen as impractical given the scope and complexity of modern legislative needs.
• The argument for the necessity of the modern administrative state may underestimate the potential for bureaucratic overreach and inefficiency.
• The role of regulatory agencies in upholding public health and safety can be critiqued for creating red tape and stifling economic growth.
• Calls for increased legislative oversight of agencies might not consider the potential for political interference in technical decision-making.
• The demand for transparency and comprehensive explanations from regulatory agencies may not acknowledge the need for confidentiality in certain sensitive areas.