”An(other) Afterword on The Bill of Rights,” 87 Geo. L. J. 2347 (1999)
The three reviews of The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction featured in the preceding pages radiate out in three remarkably different directions, but are tied together, it seems, by two threads. First, all three reviews reflect a great measure of generosity towards the book and its author. For that generosity of spirit -- and for the generosity of The Georgetown Law Journal and its willingness to devote so many pages to a conversation about this book -- I am profoundly grateful. Second, all three reviews respond in interesting ways to the book's use of constitutional textualism. Professor Calabresi's wide-ranging meditation considers constitutional textualism generally; Professor Gerhardt highlights the particular type of holistic textualism featured in the book, placing particular emphasis on the implications of this interpretive method for impeachment issues; and Professor Cottrol notes the interesting connections between the Second Amendment and two other critical texts: the seventh provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1866. In the Afterword of my book, I tried to begin a conversation about the particular brands of constitutional textualism that I had found myself deploying (along with other interpretive methodologies), and in more recent work, I have attempted to keep this conversation alive. I am therefore delighted that all three reviewers seem interested in continuing the conversation. In this response, I shall offer a few more thoughts about constitutional textualism in light of these three thoughtful and generous reviews.
Date of Authorship for this Version
Amar, Akhil Reed, "An(other) Afterword on The Bill of Rights" (1999). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 844.