Is man truly the measure of all things? If so, then perhaps that very premise accounts for our nation's constitutional ills.

In a wide-ranging study based on legal history, political theory, and philosophical concepts going all the way back to Plato, Robert Clinton seeks to challenge current faith in an activist judiciary. Claiming that a human-centered Constitution leads to government by reductive moral theory and illegitimate judicial review, he advocates a return to traditional jurisprudence and a God-centered Constitution grounded in English common law and its precedents.

Building upon his widely-discussed work Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review, in which he urged the need for greater judicial accountability, Clinton reviews the transformation of legal traditions through the "Marbury Myth" and advocates a jurisprudence that would constrain capricious judicial interpretation by re-establishing traditional methods of legal analysis and rules of precedent. He seeks to ground constitutional theory in common law reasoning, and to ground common law reasoning in a naturalistic jurisprudence-conceived along Thomistic lines--that presupposes a transcendent source of legal order in the world.

Clinton argues that his proposed reorientation is superior to today's most influential approaches to constitutional interpretation, particularly academic moralism and subjective intentionalism. His account of the doctrine of original intention particularly helps to clarify an issue that has until now received much political attention but little scholarly analysis that is not already associated with these prevailing approaches.

"God and Man in the Law" joins a literature that stands at the intersection of political science and the study of law and will enlighten scholars who study constitutional matters in both fields. By focusing on the relation between judicial review and constitutional interpretation, it challenges judges to reclaim the traditions of the past for the sake of democracy's future.

Arguments over constitutional interpretation increasingly highlight the full range of political, moral, and cultural fault lines in American society. Yet all the contending parties claim fealty to the Constitution. This volume brings together some of America's leading scholars of constitutional originalism to reflect on the nature and significance of various approaches to constitutional interpretation and controversies. Throughout the book, the contributors highlight the moral and political dimensions of constitutional interpretation. In doing so, they bring constitutional interpretation and its attendant disputes down from the clouds, showing their relationship to the concerns of the citizen. In addition to matters of interpretation, the book deals with the proper role of the judiciary in a free society, the relationship of law to politics, and the relationship of constitutional originalism to the deepest concerns of political thought and philosophy.

Arguments over constitutional interpretation increasingly highlight the full range of political, moral, and cultural fault lines in American society. Yet all the contending parties claim fealty to the Constitution. This volume brings together some of America's leading scholars of constitutional originalism to reflect on the nature and significance of various approaches to constitutional interpretation and controversies. Throughout the book, the contributors highlight the moral and political dimensions of constitutional interpretation. In doing so, they bring constitutional interpretation and its attendant disputes down from the clouds, showing their relationship to the concerns of the citizen. In addition to matters of interpretation, the book deals with the proper role of the judiciary in a free society, the relationship of law to politics, and the relationship of constitutional originalism to the deepest concerns of political thought and philosophy.

Few Supreme Court decisions are as well known or loom as large in our nation's history as "Marbury v. Madison." The 1803 decision is widely viewed as having established the doctrine of judicial review, which permits the Court to overturn acts of Congress that violate the Constitution; moreover, such judicial decisions are final, not subject to further appeal.

Robert Clinton contends that few decisions have been more misunderstood, or misused, in the debates over judicial review. He argues that the accepted view of "Marbury" is ahistorical and emerges from nearly a century of misinterpretation both by historians and by legal scholars.

"This book is without doubt one of the half dozen recent works that will be central to the
scholarly dispute about judicial review."--"Political Science Quarterly."

"Clinton offers a resounding correction of the prevailing orthodoxy on the "Marbury" case that has dominated scholarship in law, history, and political science for roughly the last century. . . . If he contended only 'that Marbury was not a political decision but was based on sound constitutional doctrine and existing legal precedent', this book would still make a quite valuable contribution to the literature. . . . But there is more: the constitutional doctrine and legal precedents Clinton has rediscovered, in which the Marbury ruling is firmly grounded, reveal judicial review to be . . . of profoundly narrower scope than is admitted today by right or left, by originalists or nonoriginalists. . . . Clinton has done much] to blow away a good deal of fog surrounding Marshall, Marbury, and the scope of judicial power."--"Review of Politics."

"Every student of judicial review should read this book. Even those who disagree with its main thesis will find it very stimulating."--Christopher Wolfe, author of "The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law."

"An important book. Clinton's new and unorthodox look at Marbury v. Madison is interesting, provocative, and controversial. He presents clearly, forcefully, and persuasively a great amount of evidence to support his thesis."--"Social Science Quarterly."

"Clinton's reconstruction of the legal academicians' wrangling over Marbury makes delightful reading. . . . He is witty, subtle, and makes points with great deftness."--"William and Mary Quarterly."

"A coherent, provocative, and welcome challenge to the liberal-Progressive interpretation of judicial review."--"Journal of American History."