ABSTRACT
When many people hear of a constitutional question being decided by the Supreme Court, they employ what I call the New York Yimes syllogism. Most media commentators seem to follow this simple view of constitutional interpretation. Like any syllogism it has three parts in the form of two premises and a logical conclusion. The classic example of a syllogism is: (a) all trout are fish; (b) all fish swim; therefore, (c) all trout swim. The NYTimes syllogism begins with the premise (a) my political views are correct. Most politically motivated citizens have a clear confidence that their ideals are the right ones. The second premise is (b) the Constitution is correct. In our society this is a mainstream and almost unchallenged view. By now you see where this is going: if my political views are correct, and the Constitution is correct, then clearly (c) the Constitution must agree with my political views. It is not necessary to delve into it more deeply or consider the text of the document itself given this clear path to its meaning. If you are sure that the Constitution is correct, it must say what you also know is correct, even if it seems not to. This political shortcut is simple and logically complete, but perhaps fatally flawed. It is quite possible that the Constitution does not agree with some of your political preferences. This observation is not an insult. The Constitution is meant to set limits, and it may be the case that some of your personal preferences are outside of its bounds. Nor is it an insult that many people with political ideologies on the Left or Right are convinced that their views are surely reflected in the Constitution. Constitutional interpretation is a complex topic that does not receive its due share of public discussion. A brief explanation of the nuances of the Constitution and the Court is a rare thing, which is what this book attempts to provide.
