Jason Brennan wonders:
From my perspective as an outsider, the entire field of constitutional law seems intellectually corrupt. It seems that almost everybody does the following:
1. Start with a political philosophy–a view of what you want the government to be able to do and what you want to the government to to be forbidden from doing.
2. Take the Constitution as a given.
3. Reverse engineer a theory of constitutional interpretation such that it turns out–happily!–that the Constitution forbids what you want it to forbid and allows what you want it to allow… for the most part, people of every ideology tend to argue that the Constitution allows or forbids exactly what they would want it to allow or forbid. Isn’t the most plausible explanation of this that most legal theorists are intellectually corrupt? (They may be sincere, but they are suffering from terrible confirmation bias.)
The Dish 