Book Reviewed: How to Interpret the Constitution by Cass R. Sunstein

Reconstructing the foundations of American constitution To determine the meaning of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices use one of several methods of constitutional interpretation. In some cases, the meaning of the constitution is apparent from the text itself, but much of the Constitution is broadly worded, leaving room for the Court to interpret its provisions before it applies to a particular circumstance. For example, the Second Amendment reads, A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Does this right extend to all citizens, or only to militia. It is unclear, but the 2008 Supreme Court ruled that every American has the constitutional right to bear arms. To choose a theory of interpretation, the author says that justices seek reflective equilibrium, which means that fixed points in the constitution are relevant. These fixed points are related to morality and justice. Among the methods of constitutional interpretation include Textualism, adhering to the text of the Constitution; Semantic originalism, deciding on the meaning of words; Original Intentions, based on the idea of authorial intentions or what went through the minds of the framers of the constitution; the original public meaning; the ratifiers' expectations; protecting democracy, democracy-reinforcing judicial review; Traditionalism that observes long-standing traditions; and moral readings that makes best moral sense. These methods have both benefits and disadvantages. Moral readings are unmoored or dangerous. Who are judges to tell us what morality is. Clarence Thomas is a good example for originalist judge, and we heard a lot about it during the confirmation hearing of Judge Bork during Ronal Reagen presidency, when he said that he would be following a literal interpretation of the framer’s language and intent. The extent of such applications is evident in recent SCOTUS decisions like the ban on abortion. Justice Clearence Thomas suggested that other cases that rest on the right to privacy must be reviewed. Specifically, cases protecting contraception access and same-sex relationships. In addition, regulating the social media companies which have too much control over online discussion about political and economic events. These digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech which is controlled by a few people in the organization. The U.S. Constitution as it stands now protect the Islamic Sharia Law and its core beliefs that include, jihad and Fatwa orders are religious duties, and so are killing apostates and infidels, blasphemy laws, practicing Ummah and Sharia. The constitutional experts must weigh in on these topics. It is pertinent to note that the European Court on Human Rights has ruled more than once that Sharia is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” However, it has effectively legitimized an Islamic blasphemy code in the interests of "preserving religious peace" in Europe. The author states that the Constitution must be defended on the ground that it makes the relevant constitutional order better rather than worse. But he doesn’t define what is better or worse, and for whom is it better? This book needs some work that includes some edits.