Saving the Constitution From Lawyers : How Legal Training and Law Reviews Distort Constitutional Meaning

This book is a sweeping indictment of the legal profession in the realm of constitutional interpretation. The adversarial, advocacy-based American legal system is well suited to American justice, in which one-sided arguments collide to produce a just outcome. But when applied to constitutional theorizing, the result is selective analysis, overheated rhetoric, distorted facts, and overstated conclusions. Such wayward theorizing finds its way into print in the nation's over 600 law journals – professional publications run by law students, not faculty or other professionals – and peer review is almost never used to evaluate worthiness. The consequences of this system are examined through three timely cases: the presidential veto, the 'unitary theory' of the president's commander-in-chief power, and the Second Amendment's 'right to bear arms'. In each case, law reviews were the breeding ground for defective theories that won false legitimacy and political currency. This book concludes with recommendations for reform. Cover......Page 1 Half-title......Page 3 Title......Page 5 Copyright......Page 6 Dedication......Page 7 Contents......Page 9 Acknowledgments......Page 11 Introduction......Page 13 Outline of the Book......Page 19 1 The Logic, and Illogic, of Law......Page 21 Lawyers as Liars?......Page 23 Thinking Like a Lawyer......Page 26 The Adversary System, Advocacy, and Truth......Page 29 Lawyering versus Scholarship......Page 34 Social Sciences and the Rules of Inquiry......Page 37 Conclusion......Page 43 2 The Law Journal Breeding Ground......Page 45 History......Page 47 Students in Charge?......Page 50 A Scholarly Enterprise?......Page 53 How the System Works......Page 56 Criticisms......Page 58 Professional Peer Review: The Academic Gold Standard......Page 61 The Problems with Student Control......Page 65 Length, Redundancy, and Footnotes......Page 68 Conclusion......Page 70 3 The Inherent Item Veto......Page 72 Colonial Precedents......Page 75 Impoundment......Page 81 What the Founders Understood about the Veto......Page 84 State Precedent?......Page 85 The “Rider” Problem......Page 86 The Bill Definition and “Omnibus” Problems......Page 89 The Presentment Clause......Page 91 The Veto as a “Revisionary” Power......Page 93 An Eviscerated Veto?......Page 96 Conclusion: Rescuing Constitutional Interpretation......Page 97 4 The Unitary Executive and the Commander-in-Chief Power......Page 102 The Unitary Executive Theory: Article II on Steroids......Page 104 The Constitutional Commander-in-Chief......Page 111 The Commander-in-Chief According to Yoo......Page 115 From Law Journal to Law......Page 117 The Bush Commander-in-Chief......Page 120 Distorting the Courts......Page 121 What Hamilton Says......Page 123 Other Cases......Page 126 A Political Document or a Legal One?......Page 133 Conclusion: Reinventing the Commander-in-Chief......Page 137 5 The Second Amendment......Page 141 The Meaning of the Second Amendment......Page 143 Supreme Court Rulings......Page 148 Other Court Rulings......Page 153 The “Individualist” Critique......Page 157 The “Right of Revolution”......Page 160 Collateral Claims and the Research Record......Page 165 Seeking Shelter under the Fourteenth Amendment......Page 172 Public Policy Consequences......Page 176 Interest-Group Involvement......Page 184 Conclusion......Page 187 6 Conclusion......Page 189 Reform......Page 191 Legal Training and Research......Page 192 Law Reviews......Page 194 Law Reviews Will Still Matter......Page 198 About the Author......Page 199 Index......Page 201 "This book is a sweeping indictment of the legal profession when it enters the realm of constitutional interpretation. The adversarial, advocacy-based American legal system is well-suited to American justice, where one-sided arguments collide to produce a just outcome. But when applied to constitutional theorizing, the result is selective analysis, overheated rhetoric, distorted facts, and overstated conclusions. Such wayward theorizing finds its way into print in the nation's more than six hundred law journals - professional publications run by law students, not faculty or other professionals, and in which peer review is almost never used to evaluate worthiness. The consequences of this system are examined through three timely cases: the presidential veto, the "unitary theory" of the president's commander-in-chief power, and the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms." In each case, law reviews were the breeding ground for defective theories that won false legitimacy and political currency. This book concludes with recommendations for reform."--BOOK JACKET This sweeping indictment of the legal profession's forays into constitutional theorizing argues that legal training and writing are ill suited to scholarly analysis of critical constitutional issues. Through careful examination of legal principles and the law's vast student-run publishing venue - law reviews - Spitzer concludes that wayward constitutional theorizing is too often the result.