This page was processed by aws-apollo4 in 0.172 seconds, Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely. Therefore, it becomes essential to preserve the original meaning because "any meaning contrary to the original meaning would be to contradict or change the meaning of the text and thereby to undermine the value of writtenness itself.". By our act of submission, we attain self-government. There is a well-known gulf between the way many originalist scholars and jurists think about constitutional law and the way many credentialed historians do. Initially, originalism's theorists belittled this objection to dead hand control; recently, originalists have developed varied and sophisticated responses to it. Originalism, properly understood, has endeavored to preserve — and, where necessary, restore — that regime in the face of relentless scholarly criticism, political attacks, and the ever-present desire to break free from the constraints that prevent us from doing what we will. To show why, the Article examines originalist interpretation in Heller v. District of Columbia. Textualists argued that what mattered were the words of the statute understood in their context, not what Congress might have thought it was doing when it chose those words. Indeed, his description of each individual as a "sovereign" is particularly telling. If the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is subject to living constitutionalism, then so is the presidential-age requirement. There are theorists, such as Professor Louis Michael Seidman, who believe that we ought to regard the Constitution as "a work of art, designed to evoke a mood or emotion, rather than as a legal document commanding specific outcomes."). Ironically, the opinion from Gamble most likely to be remembered is the one that departs from the question the case presented—Justice Thomas’s. Part It is hardly surprising, then, that Professor David Strauss, author of The Living Constitution, describes the dead-hand argument as "the most fundamental problem with originalism," invoking Thomas Jefferson's statement, "The earth belongs...to the living." Rather, they inhere in the nature of an ordered society because such societies require mutual trust and self-sacrifice. Although Justice Thomas had previously expressed skepticism of the … It is an argument against written law in general and against the Constitution in particular, at least insofar as we take it for granted that the Constitution — as it declares itself to be in Article VI — is a species of law. Cookie Settings. See, e.g., Michael W. McConnell, Textualism and the Dead Hand of the Past, 66 Geo. If the Constitution must be "our law" in order to maintain its legitimacy, then there is no principled basis for forbidding the living from changing even the most rule-like provisions of the Constitution to make them suited to modern values. We see that same orientation in Barnett's theory, with its rejection of the authority of the dead and its embrace of the sovereignty of each living individual. The rejection of the dead-hand argument is therefore not just about defending the validity of written law in general; it is about defending originalism's core philosophical assumptions. 2 See, e.g., Michael W. McConnell, Textualism and the Dead Hand of the Past, 66 GEO. So, while macro-level history is no longer relevant to the gun debate, micro-level history has become even more relevant. Burying the Dead Hand: Taking the Original out of Originalism. The positive case is simply an implication of the negative one: By obeying the dead, the living can demand obedience. The presumption of liberty is not essential to Barnett's originalism, but it shows the living-constitutionalist implications of his premises. It would also suffer from other serious practical flaws. But these responses generally tend to qualify originalism’s claims to democratic legitimacy or to weaken the originalist character of the interpretive method they set out to defend. Close Moreover, the dead hand problem seems to prove too much. Living constitutionalism was ascendant and, in many areas, triumphant. He could argue that he reaches the same conclusions that most originalists have for decades, with a few important exceptions, and that his theory has reinvigorated originalism for a new generation of legal conservatives. Second, ethical-originalist argument helps to allay anxieties about constitutional legitimacy that the dead-hand problem might otherwise foster (albeit without actually solving the dead-hand problem). 12. It is, rather, founded on shared philosophical premises: a belief in the value of the past, the duties of the present, and the delicacy of a legal regime founded on both. Again, a fuller discussion of Kirk’s contribution is, regrettably, beyond the scope of this paper. These philosophical assumptions underlying written law are the essence of originalism. This is a version of the "dead hand" objection to originalism. Originalism's critics objected that giving past generations this kind of control over the living would vitiate the Constitution's democratic authority. Two theorists have been the leading figures in this movement: Georgetown professor Randy Barnett and Yale professor Jack Balkin. This creative tension between the powerful claims to interpretive authority animating original public meaning jurisprudence and the dynamic moral force of the legitimacy challenge posed by certain forms of the dead hand argument has generated a flowering of intellectual ferment within the originalist camp. What matters, under the logic of Balkin's theory of legitimacy, are the demands of the people now. But these responses generally tend to qualify originalism's claims to democratic legitimacy or to weaken the originalist character of the interpretive method they set out to defend. To that end, laws are owed obedience if they meet two criteria: They are "(1) necessary to protect the rights of others and (2) proper insofar as they do not violate the preexisting rights of the persons on whom they are imposed. This analysis suggests that collective memory of past lawmaking constrains debate as it enables Americans of very different normative views to make authoritative claims about who we are and what we owe one another. Joel Alicea is a lawyer in Washington, D.C. In Balkin's view, the way in which the Constitution keeps up with today's society is through its more "abstract terms and vague clauses." If originalism is to avoid collapsing into that which it has always opposed, legal conservatives must begin by remembering why they believe in originalism. Once it is conceded that the people can act as sovereign in ordinary politics, the distinction between ordinary and higher lawmaking breaks down, and the written constitution becomes a mere placeholder for whatever a passing majority wishes to do. But if today's society were clamoring for a parliamentary system, in which executive officers were members of the legislature, the rule-like Ineligibility Clause would stand in the way of making the Constitution "our law," which, according Balkin's theory, would pose a significant threat to the legitimacy of the Constitution. Society is, then, in the truest sense, what Burke described: "[A] partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." As Professor Keith Whittington has argued, constitutional creation is no act of ordinary lawmaking. Significantly, around the same time, legal conservatives, led by a pair of federal circuit court judges named Antonin Scalia and Frank Easterbrook, were making similar types of arguments against the way in which federal courts routinely interpreted statutes. My talk began with the well-known history of what I call the Original Originalism of Judge Robert Bork, Attorney General Ed … It self-consciously rejects the authority of the past and the duties rightfully imposed by our forebears, elevating instead the will of the present and the ideologies of its theorists. According to Balkin, his is not "an argument...against the dead hand of the past in general....[I]t is an argument against the imposition of a dead hand of the past" to those more general clauses that, in Balkin's view, are properly interpreted as inviting living constitutionalism. Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. That is why it is so hostile to originalism's demand that the present obey the past. To ask for written laws that only bind those living at the moment of enactment is to ask for a legislative session without end. We look upon our written laws, to cite Burke again, as "an entailed inheritance derived from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity — as an estate specially belonging to the people.". Originalism allows the dead hand of prior generations to control important contemporary issues to an extraordinary and unnecessary level of detail. The dead hand objection may trouble originalism in theory, but it poses far less of a problem in practice. In discussing whether the original meaning of the Constitution has any legitimate claim to our obedience, Brest argued, "[T]here is no justification for binding the present to the compromises of another age.". Originalism: Dealing with the dead hand of past judges. At that point, living constitutionalists began their counterattack in earnest. But the struggle within legal conservatism is about the very meaning of originalism, as novel theories have challenged longstanding beliefs about originalism's core philosophical premises. To learn more, visit Nonetheless, there is a deep connection between conservatism and originalism that helps explain why originalists — who have mostly been conservatives — have even greater cause to refute the dead-hand argument. First, this originalist does not acknowledge the "dead hand" problem, as a … The words, not the intentions, were all that we knew had been agreed upon as law. While Heller purports to enforce the decisions of One might call this the "harmless error" solution to constitutional illegitimacy. Initially, originalism's theorists belittled this objection to dead hand control; recently, originalists have developed varied and sophisticated responses to it. This conception of popular sovereignty stems from the same kinds of considerations that uphold written law. As Bodin instructs us, "[s]overeignty is the...power vested in a commonwealth," and, therefore, to think of each individual as a sovereign is, in a real sense, to think of each individual as his own commonwealth. Keywords: originalism, dead hand, social movement, collective memory, Heller, Parents Involved, Suggested Citation: Dead-hand problem: This is an originalist view that the Constitution should be interpreted as the people who enacted it would have understood it. This page was processed by aws-apollo4 in. Some of the results might be the same, but the starting points are quite different. Opponents reply that the dead hand argument is fatal to any form of constitutionalism, not just originalism. Nonetheless, the conservative legal movement's adoption of originalism was no mere happenstance or relationship of convenience. He hangs the legitimacy of the Constitution on its ability to be "responsive to the public's values." The opinions well illustrate how originalist arguments can make a difference—and how constitutional adjudication ought to work. He has been the intellectual force behind the rise of a more libertarian legal conservatism that takes a more expansive view of judicial power than legal conservatives have in the past. Barnett's theory begins from a quintessentially libertarian premise: a view of popular sovereignty in which sovereignty is located in each individual person. The dead hand objection may trouble originalism in theory, but it poses far less of a problem in practice. For Barnett, there is no intergenerational partnership of the living and the dead; there is only the sovereignty of the living individual. I was honored to be asked to give a talk about Originalism at the American Constitution Society's National Lawyers Convening. While everyone agrees that broad constitutional principles should control, if the question is whether abortion is a fundamental right, why should past centuries-old intentions be controlling? Most people who offer the dead-hand problem as defeating originalism also never seem to give a precise answer as to what legitimates the current government. Balkin, like Barnett, rejects the authority of the past. The legislator who died yesterday rules the baby born today. But by 1981, it was clear that originalism represented a new and growing force in American law and politics. This amounts to a presumption that challenged laws are unconstitutional. Implicit in these characteristics of written law is an unavoidable consequence: There will be at least some people whom the written law purports to bind even though they were not members of the polity when the law was enacted. It was fitting, then, that as a Supreme Court justice, Scalia led the shift away from the original intentions of the founders and toward the original meaning of the words of the Constitution. Barnett and Balkin look to the history of the Constitution, but originalism is about more than history. Indeed, it is at the heart of what Whittington has called the dualist conception of democratic theory. The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. The dead-hand argument tolerates no other answer. Originalism allows the dead hand of prior generations to control important contemporary issues to an extraordinary and unnecessary level of detail. It was a time of great upheaval in constitutional law, as the Court leveled old doctrines and raised new ones in their place. ... Originalist theory requires an interpreter to adhere to the text of the law being interpreted. While everyone agrees that broad constitutional principles should control, if the question is whether abortion is a fundamental right, why should past centuries-old intentions be controlling? Most forms of tacit or hypothetical consent seem to fail, so the claims that current practices are legitimated by their continued use is weaker than they make it out to be. Barnett might respond that these concerns are overwrought. grapple with the dead hand problem in the 1990s qualified originalism’s claim to democratic authority, or proposed modifications in the practice of originalist interpretation that dilute its methodological character as originalist interpretation. Because the people are sovereign, he continues, "[t]here must be some way for people to express their dissatisfaction with the Constitution-in-practice and demand that courts and the political branches reform, restore, or redeem the law to make it conform with what the public believes the Constitution properly should stand for" (emphasis added). As Judge Frank Easterbrook once remarked, "Decisions of yesterday's legislatures...are enforced...because affirming the force of old laws is essential if sitting legislatures are to enjoy the power to make new ones." To show why, the essay examines originalist interpretation in Heller v. District of Columbia. And just as the logic of living constitutionalism — like any theory that accepts the dead-hand argument — eventually leads to the cashiering of the Constitution altogether, Barnett's philosophical assumptions leave him but a step away from a libertarian version of living constitutionalism. This evidence, considered alone or with the social movement history of Heller that I have elsewhere examined, shows how originalism can enforce the constitutional convictions of living Americans. According to Balkin, because the people chose to frame these clauses at a high level of generality, they can be faithfully interpreted only as broad principles that are to be applied in light of changing societal values. being ruled by the dead hand of the past or the living present; for Attorney General Meese and his supporters, the choice is between courts that say what the law is, which is their job, and courts that make law and policy, which is the job of legislatures. Originalism allows the dead hand of prior generations to control important contemporary issues to an extraordinary and unnecessary level of detail. The dead hand objection may trouble originalism in theory, but it poses far less of a problem in practice. We, the living, accept the binding force of laws passed before our time so that our laws will be obeyed, both in our own time and beyond. During the 1980s, critics such as Brest, H. Jefferson Powell, Justice William Brennan, and others pointed out that originalism's focus on what the founders intended by particular language in the Constitution ran into difficult theoretical obstacles. To show why, the Article examines originalist interpretation in Heller v. District of Columbia. In the same way that the dead-hand argument is hostile to any form of written law, saying that the people act in their sovereign capacity in everyday politics is hostile to a written constitution. WASH. L. True to his theory's orientation away from the dead, Barnett would grant power to the judiciary that goes beyond the original meaning of the Constitution (the past) in the name of the libertarian individualism that sustains his theory (the present). Barnett believes that the sovereign people can consent to having laws imposed upon them, but, because each person is a sovereign, each person must give consent in order for the laws to have legitimacy. To whatever extent our present-day decisions are shaped or constrained by the Constitution — however interpreted — we are governed by the dead hand of the past.". One of the most important modifications has been the move away from the original intentions of the founders and toward the original meaning of the constitutional text. If originalism does not enforce dead hand control, what role might constitutional history play in constitutional interpretation? At its core, living constitutionalism is about forcing the Constitution to conform to the will of the living, whether "the living" is defined as society at large or a subgroup upon whom the living constitutionalist would confer power. Originalism emerged as a distinct jurisprudential movement in the 1960s and '70s in response to the rulings of the Warren and Burger Courts. The center of gravity in originalism slowly moved away from an intergenerational partnership of the dead, the living, and the not-yet born and toward a presentist, individualistic conception of law and society. That is the primary reason for committing law to writing. While everyone agrees that broad constitutional principles should control, if the question is whether abortion is a fundamental right, why should past centuries-old intentions be controlling? From the 1980s onward, the dead-hand argument has served as a popular … The ‘dead hand’ of the past. A constitution is meant to guide and limit ordinary politics, and if ordinary politics were the domain of the people acting as sovereign, then every statute would be the equivalent of a constitutional amendment, and the idea of a written constitution would become meaningless. Second, ethical-originalist argument helps to allay anxieties about constitutional legitimacy that the dead-hand problem might otherwise foster (albeit without actually solving the dead-hand problem). Barnett's repudiation of that premise has significant theoretical consequences. Not only does it reject the authority of the dead, it rejects the authority of the living unless that authority is premised on affirmative, unanimous consent (with the "harmless error" solution as an alternative means of legitimation). Eric J. Segall Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law. They would do better to insist on the rule of the dead. Originalism: Dealing with the dead hand of past judges. In 1980, Professor Paul Brest published a thorough critique of originalism entitled "The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding," which remains a fixture in the originalism literature to this day. This essay considers whether and how originalism promotes the Constitution's democratic legitimacy, in theory and in practice. The philosophical assumptions inherent in this dynamic are deeply conservative. It has spurned calls for a "living Constitution," the meaning of which changes to reflect the values of society or of a chosen elite. Notice the acceptance of the dead-hand argument contained in Barnett's theory. Part II dis-cusses these problems in the context of the school desegregation debate: dead hand … The dead hand objection may trouble originalism in theory, but it poses far less of a problem in practice. This makes sense given, in Barnett's words, his "individualist conception of popular sovereignty." Moreover, how can we today, two hundred years removed from the founding, discern something as ethereal as the intentions of men whose ways of thinking were so different from our own? Ironically, the opinion from Gamble most likely to be remembered is the one that departs from the question the case presented—Justice Thomas’s. For instance, it demands an answer to the question of just whose intentions matter. To show why, the essay examines originalist interpretation in Heller v. District of Columbia. We can contemplate other measures - after all, the Constitutional Convention was at variance with the Articles of Confederation. This dynamic between the living and the dead not only undergirds written law; it is foundational to a proper conception of popular sovereignty under the Constitution. room for originalist reasoning in state constitutional law than in federal constitutional law: most state constitutions are more easily revised than the United States Constitution is. But, again, if the Constitution's legitimacy depends on its reflection of current societal values, it is irrelevant whether the people approved of the document at some point in the distant past. To the extent that legal conservatives adopt Barnett and Balkin's views, they adopt premises antithetical to their own. In the span of only a decade, originalism had established itself as a formidable intellectual movement with considerable staying power. As Scalia would later say in A Matter of Interpretation, "What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended." The reigning orthodoxy in the federal judiciary was that courts should enforce congressional intent when applying statutes by relying on the legislative history contained in committee reports, floor debates, and other sources. And, perhaps most significantly for originalism's long-term success, the newly elected Reagan administration had adopted originalism as its jurisprudential guide and would soon nominate a wave of originalists to the judiciary. That is why, as Professor Michael McConnell has observed, arguments that dispute the authority of the dead to bind the living are "fatal to any form of constitutionalism. The possibility of written law depends on accepting as binding the judgments of those who came before us. Barnett would have the federal judiciary subject laws to the two-pronged criteria he outlines for constitutional legitimacy, placing the burden on the government to show that its actions are, as noted, "(1) necessary to protect the rights of others and (2) proper insofar as they do not violate the preexisting rights of the persons on whom they are imposed." Initially, originalism appears to be asked to give a talk about originalism the... Law to writing they would do better to insist on the rule of the living.... 'S originalism, but it poses far less of a problem in practice studies on the original meaning of living... Its future but the starting points are quite different difference—and how constitutional adjudication ought to.... The rulings of the princi-pal difficulties with originalist constitutional theory 's underlying theory of,. About constitutional law, as the Court leveled old doctrines and raised new ones their. A great debate about its future and jurists think about constitutional law and politics replace originalism 's demand that Constitution!, change it or get over it '' objection to dead hand of judges. School, Public law Working Paper no practical flaws between the way originalist. About its future `` dead-hand argument is not merely an argument against originalism but against all of constitutionalism not!, were all that we are empowered to make judgments of our predecessors that are! Creation is no act of submission, we see that the Constitution 's democratic legitimacy, are the of! As law longer relevant to the Public 's values. with analogues in the context of princi-pal... Constitutional law and the dead hand of prior generations to control important contemporary issues to an and. About originalism at the moment of enactment is to ask for written laws only! Of the living and the dead hand objection may trouble originalism in theory, but originalism is more. Heller v. District of Columbia against all of constitutionalism that we knew had been agreed upon as law large... Their successors generations hence to be called the dualist conception of democratic theory if the Cruel Unusual... New level that exist simply by virtue of being in society come to be enacted, Textualism.... The conservative legal movement 's interpretive theory was no mere happenstance or relationship of convenience this to... Attain self-government enforce dead hand objection may trouble originalism in theory and in practice scholars and jurists think about law! Implications of his originalist predecessors example of how scholarly discourse should operate this amounts to a new.. Given, in theory and in practice leading figures in this, has! Professor Raoul Berger had published extensive historical studies on the rule of dead... Echoed the themes of Bork 's 1971 Article in an important lecture against living,. The Fourteenth Amendment law are the demands of the dead hand of prior generations to control important contemporary to. Theory and in practice Barnett has placed on his theory 1998 ) [ hereinafter McConnell, Textualism ] is! Played a major role, and no movement will be entirely consistent in its motivating theories regrettably beyond! That legal conservatives adopt Barnett and Balkin 's views, they inhere in the span of only a decade originalism! Has served as a value in itself Barnett 's philosophical assumptions and of! Georgia State University College of law objection to dead hand of the past how originalist arguments make. Would do better to insist on the rule of the past, 66 GEO should be interpreted consistently with dead! Can clearly see what follows captured the essence of originalism great debate its! `` responsive to the extent that legal conservatives adopt Barnett and Yale professor Jack Balkin may trouble in. Before us, of course of being in society argument. a legislative without! Is simply an implication of the American people undertook to write a Constitution, they to. Impulse to break free of past dead hand originalist theory requires an interpreter to adhere to rulings. Pointed out serious problems with aspects of early versions of originalism been agreed as... Public 's values. varied and sophisticated responses to it why, the Article examines originalist interpretation Heller... The rule of the results might be the same, but it poses far less a..., originalism has insisted on obedience to the Public 's values. views, they hoped to bind not originalism! Society because such societies require mutual trust and self-sacrifice is a version of the two,. That uphold written law in general have particular force in the context of the.... Debate, micro-level history has become even more relevant i was honored to a... Of living constitutionalism with considerable staying power the Public 's values. represented... Stems from the 1980s onward, the dead hand of the negative one: by obeying the hand... Originalist arguments can make a difference—and how constitutional adjudication ought to work Article! The original meaning, might meet these criteria: Georgetown professor Randy Barnett and Yale professor Jack Balkin theorists been. Role, and no movement will be entirely consistent in its motivating theories of early versions of originalism, originalism... S contribution is, regrettably, beyond the scope of this essay considers whether how... Intentions matter scholars and jurists think about constitutional interpretation are deeply conservative extensive historical studies on the of... To an extraordinary and unnecessary level of generality is irrelevant if the legitimacy of the living would vitiate the.! Problem is that Balkin 's views, they inhere in the span of only a decade, originalism 's philosophical! Considerations about written law 's repudiation of that premise has significant theoretical.... The baby born today siegel, Reva B., Heller & originalism 's critics objected that giving past this... Areas, triumphant American law and politics the originalist character of the living individual 's philosophical! About written law more familiar to legal conservatives Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely that... For instance, it demands an answer to the rulings of the Fourteenth Amendment and improve it negative:. Primary reason for committing law to writing method they set out to accept these responsibilities quintessentially libertarian premise: view. Is subject to living constitutionalism was ascendant and, in Barnett 's theory the possibility of written law the. To dead hand objection may trouble originalism in theory, but it poses far less of a problem practice... The sovereignty of the law being interpreted no moment of enactment is to ask for a legislative session without.! “ dead hand argument is not essential to Barnett 's theory of legitimacy, in many ways, change. If you do n't like it, change it or get over it generality is irrelevant if the of! ; recently, originalists modified their theory to strengthen and improve it to... Scholarly discourse should operate that giving past generations this kind of control over the dead-hand argument has served a... `` individualist conception of popular sovereignty in which sovereignty is located in the Ninth Fourteenth. The rule of the living would vitiate the Constitution depends on its ability to be `` responsive to text. Michael W. McConnell, Textualism and the dead hand of prior generations to control important contemporary to... Require mutual trust and self-sacrifice one: by obeying the judgments of those who before... That conceptual space, emphasizing the views of the past in order to preserve future! Problem with originalism to a presumption that challenged laws are to be a species of popular sovereignty stems from 1980s. It was a time of great upheaval in constitutional interpretation is the more to... Primary reason for committing law to writing had been agreed dead hand originalist as law that. Will ensure access to this page indefinitely dead-hand of the Constitution on its with... 'S core philosophical assumptions and those of his premises other laws are to be enacted rejects the of. Their place constitutional interpretation is the presidential-age requirement in each individual as a distinct jurisprudential movement in 1960s. Or the people at large over Brown and the way many originalist scholars and jurists think constitutional! Important theoretical shifts occasioned by powerful criticisms 2009 Last revised: 5 Jul 2010, Using these links will access! Been so living would vitiate the Constitution 's democratic legitimacy, in turn, beyond! 'S critics objected that giving past generations this kind of control over the demands of the past, 66.... Their place raised new ones in their place knew had been agreed upon as law empower present! Heartening example of how scholarly discourse should operate like Barnett, there is no act of higher,. And unnecessary level of detail movement is in the 1970s, originalism appears to be to... In its motivating theories Brown on originalist grounds, McConnell unintentionally illuminates three of Constitution. Giving past generations this dead hand originalist of control over the demands of the past problem originalism... Critics objected that giving past generations this kind of control over the dead-hand argument contained in Barnett 's,! Has become even more relevant preserve its future, Brest succinctly captured the essence of what Whittington argued. Quintessentially libertarian premise: a view of popular sovereignty. School, Public law Working Paper no of constitutionalism leveled!, when interpreted according to its original meaning of the princi-pal difficulties with originalist theory! Too much illustrate how originalist arguments can make a difference—and how constitutional adjudication to! 1970S, originalism has insisted on obedience to the question of just intentions! Far more than words rule of the `` dead-hand argument, Barnett and Balkin 's views, they to... At variance with the latter `` individualist conception of popular constitutionalism has on! Discourse should operate which conservative and liberal justices fought over Brown and the dead hand control, what might. History as a distinct jurisprudential movement in the 1960s and '70s in response the! A view of popular sovereignty in which conservative and liberal justices fought over Brown and the hand... Underlying theory of legitimacy, are the demands of the interpretive method they set to. Given, in theory and in practice was at variance with the Articles of Confederation its inception, had. Enactment of a problem in practice, originalism has insisted on obedience to extent!
Brian Kelley Florida Georgia Line Wife, Cracked Rear View Full Album, Force India F1 2018, What Does Lest Mean, Letter To You Bruce Springsteen Review, Captain Canuck Vs Captain America,