Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question (SIGNED BY HARRY JAFFA)

Jaffa, Harry V.; with Bruce Ledewitz, Robert L. Stone, George Anastaplo; Foreword by Lewis E. Lehrman

ISBN 10: 089526496X / ISBN 13: 9780895264961

Published by Regnery Publishing, Washington, D. C., 1994

First Edition Second Printing in priced dust jacket SIGNED by Harry V. Jaffa with personalized inscription to fellow Claremont McKenna political philosophy professor Myra Moss direct to front endpaper, a Fine unread unmarked copy in Fine dust jacket (now in mylar protector); 8vo; (xv) 408pp indexed. Seller Inventory # 32627

Synopsis:

Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question is a unique contribution to the debate, begun by Attorney General Edwin Meese in the second Reagan administration, over the "original intentions of the Framers." Professor Jaffa agrees entirely with Meese's opinion that there is a need to confine judges to interpreting, not making law. Jaffa also agrees that original intent, rightly understood, is the only sound basis of constitutional jurisprudence. But he contends that Meese, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Judge Robert Bork - original intent's leading conservative proponents - have misunderstood its meaning.
The Framers, and Abraham Lincoln, their greatest proponent, believed that the Constitution was anchored in the principles of natural law invoked by the Declaration of Independence. Rehnquist and Bork are moral relativists and legal positivists, says Professor Jaffa, who repudiate the very existence of natural law and deny that the Declaration of Independence has any role whatsoever in constitutional interpretation.
Nearly all the great constitutional controversies of our time have swirled around the meaning of the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the 14th Amendment. Professor Jaffa contends that it is impossible to interpret the intent of the 14th Amendment without understanding the conflict between the principles and the compromises of the antebellum Constitution. This conflict came to a head in 1857 in the case of Dred Scott. Professor Jaffa shows that Rehnquist, Bork, and Meese have completely misunderstood that case, attributing to "substantive due process" or "judicial usurpation" what was in fact a failure on the part of the Court to understand that in a federal territory the black man's human nature gave him constitutional standing, slavery in the states to the contrary notwithstanding.
Jaffa also shows that in their determined effort to avoid recourse to the Declaration in their interpretation of Dred Scott, Rehnquist, Bork, and Meese are heirs, not of the Founding Fathers but of the father of the Confederacy, John C. Calhoun. Present-day conservative jurisprudence, in its positivist rejection of the Declaration, the Framers, and Lincoln is descended from Calhoun, not the Framers. Jaffa shows in Original Intent that this jurisprudence is no more principled than its liberal opposition; it merely seeks different results.

From the Author: Understanding the Constitution in Light of the Declaration
The Constitution cannot be understood without reference to the natural law principles of the Declaration of Independence. The Framers and Lincoln--their greatest advocate--agreed with this view. Today, many interpreters of the Constitution, including many conservatives, reject the original understanding in favor of a doctrine of states' rights or majoritarianism. These scholars and judges are descended from the father of the confederacy, John C. Calhoun, not the Founding Fathers.

Bibliographic Details

Title: Original Intent and the Framers of the ...
Publisher: Regnery Publishing, Washington, D. C.
Publication Date: 1994
Binding: Hard Cover
Condition: As New
Dust Jacket Condition: As New
Signed: Signed by Author
Edition: First Edition.