The value of a written constitution

Continuing a train of thought regarding constitutions that I'd written about back in June, I point everyone to Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy, who writes about why a written constitution is valuable, from a legal perspective:

The Constitution is not the law that binds us, but a law to bind lawmakers and keep them within proper bounds. If these same lawmakers, or judges, are free to changed its meaning as they will, then it will cease to do its job. We therefore stick with a written constitution until it is properly changed in writing, not because the dead have any authority over us, or because a supermajority have authority over the minority, but because the "lock-in" provided by a written constitution is an essential, or at least a vital, means of imposing a law on the lawmakers. We should follow it because we the living, right here, right now, are committed to a written constitution. (I explain this at greater length in my article An Originalism for Nonoriginalists, though I will expand upon this treatment in Restoring the Lost Constitution.)

He goes on to give advice for what to do when the constitution is unjust (and not just the actions/interpretations of lawmakers and judges). Bonus points for the Lysander Spooner reference. (heh)

Share this

I want to see value of

I want to see value of written constitution.

WHY IS A WRITTEN

WHY IS A WRITTEN CONTSTITUTION THOUGHT NECESSARY AT THIS POINT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION?