Robert L. Stone, Seattle University Law Review 10:3 (1987). Reprinted in Original Intent & the Framers of the Constitution (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1994).
This Article replies to Professor’ Jaffa’s article, “What Were the ‘Original Intentions’ of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States?,” and book, The Crisis of the House Divided. The Article argues that Professor Jaffa’s method throughout his indictment of legal scholars has three flaws. First, the Article argues that Professor Jaffa takes statements of sensible political compromises–such as support for judicial restraint, British traditions, and local self-government–and treats them as if they were philosophical statements. Second, the author contends that Professor Jaffa assembles a composite indictment, which in law is appropriately applied only to an indictment against a proven conspiracy, the existence of which Professor Jaffa has not proved. Third, the Article shows in detail that each of the statements of the four steps almost certainly was not intended as such by its author. Therefore, the Article concludes that Professor Jaffa’s indictment fails to meet its burden of proof.
Seattle University Law Review