There are often said to be two competing schools for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution. On one side are those who believe that the meaning of the Constitution must evolve over time as society itself changes. On the other side are those who insist that the original intent of the framers of the Constitution—what they wrote and what their intent was in writing it—is all that matters. Robert Bork is firmly in the latter school. We asked him to explicate his understanding of the U.S. Constitution, using recent Supreme Court decisions as case studies.
The task for legal conservatism? To preserve what we have and to regain as much as possible of what we have lost—a society that attains a more wholesome balance between the freedom of the individual and the legitimate demands of community. By Hoover fellow Robert H. Bork.