The US Constitution's first page

US politics

Americans are prone to reading Constitution as scripture, says legal scholar

Regarding the Constitution as divine amounts to “constitutional fundamentalism,” according to one law professor.

Player utilities

Listen to the story.

Legal scholar Mary Anne Franks at the University of Miami says to be wary of a biblical approach to reading the US Constitution.

Credit:

National Archives/AP Images

The Constitution, first drafted in 1787, stands as the supreme law of the land in the US. But Mary Anne Franks — a law professor at the University of Miami who grew up attending a fundamentalist church in Arkansas — says that often “we read it not as a text but as scripture,” much in the same way she was taught to read the Bible as a child.

Franks, author of "The Cult of the Constitution," argues that originalism — the judicial view that the Constitution should only be interpreted as its writers meant it to be when it became law — has been used to justify ahistorically broad interpretations of both the First Amendment and Second Amendment. Rather than claiming “transcendental access” to the founders’ legal intentions, she proposes we honor the Constitution communally by extending its rights and values to all, including the most vulnerable members of our society.

Three takeaways

  • Franks uses the word “cult” to describe how Americans sometimes view the Constitution, even though she knows that’s a loaded word. She says an originalist reading creates a hierarchy between “the people who know” and “the people who believe” akin to how cults and religious fundamentalists present and try to export their views.
  • Though often described “as men of their time,” the founding fathers had contemporaries who noted the hypocrisy of fighting taxation without representation, while subjugating enslaved people, and women. Franks focuses on Abigail Adams, who, in 1774, expressed to her husband her dislike for the notion that American revolutionaries “fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we have.” 
  • Franks argues that interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual’s right to bear arms in public is a highly-politicized view that only became popular in the last few decades. Rather, the more mainstream interpretation of the Second Amendment was that it enshrined a “collective right” protecting against a centralized government seizing arms from the people.

Related Stories

close

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. To learn more, review our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and Privacy Policy.

Ok, I understand. Close
close

The story you just read is freely available and accessible to everyone because readers like you support The World financially. 

Thank you all for helping us reach our goal of 1,000 donors. We couldn’t have done it without your support. Your donation directly supported the critical reporting you rely on, the consistent reporting you believe in, and the deep reporting you want to ensure survives. 

DONATE TODAY > No thanks