In a recent essay in The Independent Review, I praised Bruce Frohnen and George Carey’s Constitutional Morality as “one of the best, if not the best, constitutional law books of the last decade.” As I explained in that review essay, Constitutional Morality is distinct from many other excellent pieces of constitutional law scholarship in both its ideological breadth and analytical depth.
By “ideological breadth,” I am referring to how, as compared to other works in constitutional law and theory, Constitutional Morality resists partisan tropes and examines how both conservatives and liberals alike have derogated their constitutional duties. The book thereby exposes the deficiencies of the bipartisan consensus supporting our constitutional order. Constitutional Morality’s publication in 2016 is thus particularly apt, as the presidential election that year represents a reconsideration of the commitments and coalitions underlying our national political parties and institutions.
By “analytical depth,” I am referring to how Constitutional Morality probes beyond the formal veneer of case law to reveal the underlying social maladies driving our constitutional problems. For Frohnen and Carey, a much more important question than which precedents…
This is a preview. Read the full article here.