The Virginia Informer

Van Alstyne’s opinion on Constitution mischaracterized by media

Staff Editorial

---

        As someone who is considered one of the most qualified people to serve on the United State Suprme Court, Professor William W. Van Alstyne is someone who is often quoted for his stance on the American Constitution.

        That is why misleading headlines about his recent speech on Constituion Day are all the more disconcerting.

        “Van Alstyne celebrates the living U.S. Constitution” was the headline from W&M News on September 16, which also appeared on the front page of the William and Mary website. 

In all discussions of the law and on the Constitution, the phrase “living” has a specific meaning regarding legal documents.  This is interpreted to be the idea of judicial activism, in which judges decide to decipher the law, not as it is written, but how they believe it applies to contemporary social norms. 

        The problem is that Van Alstyne is much more conservative when it comes to his stance on how to read the Constitution.

        Van Alstyne says that many judges today consider the living Constitution as a way to, “make it creative through judicial art.”

        He stands firmly on the other side: “The image I have of the Constitution is of the California Redwood at its best, and its Cambrian rings, it is proof that it is alive.  When it fails to add a Cambrian ring you know it has died.”

        In no way is this an argument for judicial activism.  In fact, he is an originalist, in that he reads the document as it is written.  He does separate himself a bit from this in saying that he does not see the Constitution as the Dead Sea Scrolls, but instead they can change by law, not by “super-imposing new meanings upon it.”

        In the rare occasion that a professor hints at being conservative, they ought to at least report it.

---

Want to write about opinions for The Virginia Informer? E-mail vainfo@wm.edu for details!