Located at the intersection of law, political science,philosophy, and literary theory, this is a work of constitutionaltheory that explores the nature of American constitutionalinterpretation through a reconsideration of the long-standingdebate between the interpretive theories of originalism andnonoriginalism. It traces that debate to a particular set ofpremises about the nature of language, interpretation, andobjectivity, premises that raise the specter of unconstrained,unstructured constitutional interpretation that has hauntedcontemporary constitutional theory. It presents the novel argumentthat a critique of the underlying premises of originalism dissolvesnot just originalism but nonoriginalism as well, which leads to therecognition that constitutional interpretation is already andalways structured. It makes this argument in terms of the firstprinciple of the American political system: by their fidelity tothe Constitution, Americans are a textual people in that they livein and through the terms of a fun
'We have no choice but to go fight,' WaLty said,his voice still hoarse, his delivery slow. 'We try to piecetogether some proof. We go to court and fight Likehell, and when we Lose we can tell our clients that we foughtthe good fight. In every Lawsuit,somebody wins, somebody Loses.Sure, we'll get our butts kicked, but at this point I'drather walk out of the courtroom with my head upthan deal with sanctions and malpractice claims.'
