Methodology

Evaluates whether an action respects individual rights and liberties protected by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, including freedom of speech, religion, privacy, and bodily autonomy.

Assesses whether an action treats similarly situated persons equally and avoids invidious discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, or other protected characteristics.

Examines whether an action respects democratic processes, legislative authority, and the principle that sovereignty resides in the people through their elected representatives.

Analyzes whether an action respects the boundaries between the three branches of government, including questions of executive overreach, legislative delegation, and judicial authority.

Evaluates whether an action provides adequate procedural protections — notice, hearing, fair process — and complies with the rule of law and established legal procedures.

Assesses whether an action advances the general welfare and common good as contemplated by the Preamble and the taxing and spending clauses of the Constitution.

Examines questions of national sovereignty, security, treaty obligations, and the balance between domestic authority and international commitments.

Interprets the Constitution based on the plain, ordinary meaning of its text at the time it was written. Focuses on what the words actually say, not what they might have been intended to mean or how they might evolve.

Seeks the original public meaning of constitutional provisions as understood by the ratifying generation. Examines founding-era dictionaries, debates, and legal treatises to determine fixed constitutional meaning.

Applies established judicial precedent and constitutional doctrine developed through case law. Relies on stare decisis, balancing tests, tiers of scrutiny, and frameworks established by the Supreme Court.

Views the Constitution as a living document whose meaning evolves with society. Considers the arc of constitutional development and how principles of liberty and equality expand over time.

Evaluates constitutional questions based on real-world consequences, empirical evidence, and practical governance outcomes. Considers what actually works rather than abstract theory.

Constructs the strongest possible constitutional defense for the action being evaluated. Not an advocacy position, but an intellectual exercise to identify the strongest available arguments.