Political scholars examine the dynamic evolution of laws over time in a volume that “pushes the frontiers of knowledge about lawmaking in the US” (Choice). Politics is at its most dramatic during debates over important pieces of legislation. And while debates over legislative measures can rage for years or even decades before an item is enacted, they also endure long afterward, when the political legacy of a law eventually comes into focus. With a diverse set of contributors—including quantitative political scientists, political development scholars, historians, and economists—Living Legislation provides fresh insights into contemporary American politics and public policy. Many of the contributors to this volume focus on the question of why some laws stand the test of time while others are eliminated, replaced, or significantly amended. Others discuss how laws emerge from—and effect change within—coalition structures; the effectiveness of laws at mediating partisan conflicts; and the ways in which laws interact with broader shifts in the political environment. An essential addition to the study of politics, Living Legislation enhances understanding of democracy, governance, and power.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that the theory of an evolving, "living" Constitution effectively "rendered the Constitution useless." He wanted a "dead Constitution," he joked, arguing it must be interpreted as the framers originally understood it. In The Living Constitution, leading constitutional scholar David Strauss forcefully argues against the claims of Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and other "originalists," explaining in clear, jargon-free English how the Constitution can sensibly evolve, without falling into the anything-goes flexibility caricatured by opponents. The living Constitution is not an out-of-touch liberal theory, Strauss further shows, but a mainstream tradition of American jurisprudence--a common-law approach to the Constitution, rooted in the written document but also based on precedent. Each generation has contributed precedents that guide and confine judicial rulings, yet allow us to meet the demands of today, not force us to follow the commands of the long-dead Founders. Strauss explores how judicial decisions adapted the Constitution's text (and contradicted original intent) to produce some of our most profound accomplishments: the end of racial segregation, the expansion of women's rights, and the freedom of speech. By contrast, originalism suffers from fatal flaws: the impossibility of truly divining original intent, the difficulty of adapting eighteenth-century understandings to the modern world, and the pointlessness of chaining ourselves to decisions made centuries ago. David Strauss is one of our leading authorities on Constitutional law--one with practical knowledge as well, having served as Assistant Solicitor General of the United States and argued eighteen cases before the United States Supreme Court. Now he offers a profound new understanding of how the Constitution can remain vital to life in the twenty-first century.