Andrew Jackson and the Constitution

I just re-read Gerard Magliocca's Andrew Jackson and the Constitution: The Rise and Fall of Generation Regimes (short book), which covers both presidential politics and the Supreme Court. 

He recently took a blogging break though without comments his often brief idiosyncratic takes (on Balkanization, he was the only one both sides regularly pushed back on) are somewhat less fun. GM is a strong supporter of using the 14A, sec. 3 method to disqualify Trump (good), but not impeachment or the criminal process (bad).  

The book is a case study of how the Constitution has been applied over time via an ebb-and-flow process of generational conflicts. The winners of each generation arise among conservative pushback and new arising viewpoints. There is no magical "fixed" constitutional meaning. And, there is a lot of stretching going on.*

He talks about the "common-law process at work, where intuitions drive the results and the deeper justifications come later." The opinions have legal-sounding language. They are structured using legal principles. Such things matter. However, neutral legal principles are not the only factor involved.  

This includes Supreme Court opinions such as "preemptive opinions" that try to block change. Two examples would be Worcester v. Georgia (Native Americans) and Dred Scott v. Sanford (slavery). Both opinions as neutral constitutional law leave something to be desired, even if the former is now often cheered.  

The book provides an interesting snapshot of American history, including how Andrew Jackson and his opponents battled over the meaning of the Constitution. Jacksonians often simply worked around SCOTUS opinions, especially McCulloch v. Maryland, which provided an open-ended defense of federal power. 

One interesting character is Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen, who opposed Cherokee removal. It is not noted in the book but he later was Henry Clay's (Jackson's leading opponent) running mate. GM argues the battles over Native Americans were a significant influence in anti-slavery conversations. 

Interesting book. I read the sequel some time back and other books by the author. Overall, they are worthwhile reads, though one on the Bill of Rights was not that good in comparison.  The biographies of John Bingham (14A) and Justice Bushrod Washington were very interesting. His books also overall tend to be short, this one 129 pages, the rest notes and credits being the shortest of the bunch. 

==

* Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote a follow-up to the Trump v. Anderson ruling. They overall share GM's distasteful reaction. 

OTOH, not sure GM would agree with this bit of fiction: 

Putting aside the obvious  point that it is the original meaning of the text of the Constitution—not  twentieth century Supreme Court decisions—that supplies the fundamental law of this country

Such a Platonic forms view of the "fundamental law" is simply not how things have gone. Even if it was true, it is far from an "obvious point." 

Cf. Originalism As Faith by Eric Segall.