ABSTRACT
The philosophy of original understanding is capable of supplying neutrality in all three respects—in deriving, defining, and applying principle. In the legal academies in particular, the philosophy of original understanding is usually viewed as thoroughly passe, probably reactionary, and certainly—the most dreaded indictment of all—"outside the mainstream". In truth, only the approach of original understanding meets the criteria that any theory of constitutional adjudication must meet in order to possess democratic legitimacy. Original understanding avoids the problem of the level of generality in equal protection analysis by finding the level of generality that interpretation of the words, structure, and history of the Constitution fairly supports. The practice of overruling precedent is particularly common in constitutional law, the rationale being that it is extremely difficult for an incorrect constitutional ruling to be corrected through the amendment process. The central problem for constitutional courts is the resolution of the "Madisonian dilemma".
