This book contains a series of essays on the U.S. Bill of Rights, all of which resulted from eight conferences conducted by the Center for Judicial Studies from 1985 to `87. At that time, the rising Conservative critique of the judicial activism displayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, resulted in a demand that the Court cease "finding" new rights under the Constitution by interpreting the Constitution using the original intent of the authors of the document. The issue finally came to a head when President Ronald Reagan nominated Originalist Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987.
This book is, in many ways, a polemic against "original intent," with just about every essay arguing against it at some point or other. Indeed, as the editor says, in the Introduction, "The purpose of these essays, in sum, is to contribute to the ongoing debate over constitutional interpretation and the proper role of `original intent' in the determining of what the Constitution means and in resolving contemporary constitutional questions."
However, that said, this book is so much more than just an attack on original intent. It does give an excellent history of how the various amendments in the Bill of Rights have been interpreted and used throughout the history of the United States. Personally, I found the essays on the Tenth Amendment to be extremely interesting.
Now, twenty-plus years are a lifetime in terms of Supreme Court rulings, and much has changed in that time. Judicial activism has taken on new forms, with justices using foreign laws to trump American precedence, and with Kelo v. City of New London turning the Fifth Amendment in an entirely new and disturbing direction. As such, in certain ways, some of the arguments made within this book are already out-of-date, and no longer apply.
But, that said, I did find this to be an interesting and highly informative read. Indeed, while you might expect this book to be dry and academic in tone, it is does in fact keep your interest, informing you but never boring you.