
The Simple Principle That Can Fix American Law
What if a coherent legal philosophy could exist between the poles of living constitutionalism and originalism?

A special project on the constitutional debates in American life, in partnership with the National Constitution Center
This work was commissioned, produced, and edited by The Atlantic's editorial staff. Support for this work was provided in part by the organizations listed here.
Support for this project was provided by the Madison Initiative of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

What if a coherent legal philosophy could exist between the poles of living constitutionalism and originalism?

Partisan primaries motivate legislators to keep in lockstep with a narrow and extreme slice of the electorate rather than govern in the public interest.

The Founders would have been appalled by the attack on the Capitol but not surprised.

Their ability to hold on to their job should not depend on the same people they challenge in court.

For an institution whose legitimacy depends largely on the public’s perception of its integrity, the growth of unseen, unsigned, and unexplained decisions can only be a bad thing.

America must regulate guns not only to protect life, but to protect its citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear.

Conservative justices seem poised to use complex, technical doctrines that will likely sanction all manner of state voter-suppression measures.

And those paying attention haven’t missed it.

The 45th president profoundly altered our system of government.

The impeachment trial offers a chance to show how Donald Trump tried to undermine the election’s legitimacy for months—not just on the day of the Capitol attack.