Skip to main content

Learning from the Great Council of Revision Debate

Jeffrey H. Anderson

Should judges play a prominent policymaking role through their exercise of judicial review, or should judicial review be exercised to strike down only those acts that clearly violate the Constitution’s text or historical context? Prevailing scholarship maintains that the Constitutional Convention debates provide little relevant guidance with which to answer this question. The truth is essentially the opposite: the Convention delegates extensively considered the role that judges should play in policymaking, particularly during their debate over a proposed council of revision. This essay revisits the council of revision debate. It argues that beneath the delegates’ clear disagreements lies an apparent consensus, one heretofore largely unrecognized: that whether or not judges should have been invited to play the policymaking role they would have played as members of a council of revision, they should not play a policymaking role while serving on the judicial bench.

Click here to purchase the article.

Related Articles

Election 2016: Founders' Constitution Is Threatened

Jack David

This year’s election may well decide whether the Founders’ design will continue to survive....

Continue Reading

Religious Fanaticism Prevails Over Pakistan's Court

Farahnaz Ispahani & Nina Shea

The country’s Supreme Court dodges a decision by adjourning a high-profile blasphemy case....

Continue Reading

Did Obama Raise the White Flag Halfway on Obamacare's Insurer Bailout?

Jeffrey H. Anderson

In a brief filed in federal court, the Justice Department argues that the federal government doesn't owe insurers any taxpayer money...

Continue Reading