Abstract
As citizens—and as lawyers—we are schooled to view the U.S. Constitution as what—indeed—“constitutes” us as a nation and as a people. As lawyers— and as citizens—we are also schooled to understand that the Constitution is law and that its meaning is to be ascertained through the process of law and by lawyers and judges. This Article builds on a popular constitutionalism frame to describe the profound limitations of restricting constitutional meaning-making to a legal enterprise performed primarily by judges—especially in regard to positive rights written into the Constitution but under-protected in constitutional law. In addition, litigation’s either–or mindset has come to permeate the enterprise of perceiving constitutional meaning, which has become a win–lose game rather than a collective, collaborative, meaning- emergent process. While the current fashion for “originalism” and “textualism” aggravates this phenomenon, it is inherent in the legalization of constitutional meaning-making. Drawing from the foundational work on justice and democracy of the late political philosopher Iris Marion Young, the Article develops a story-based approach in which We the People co-create the meaning of the Constitution—broadening the conversation beyond the courthouse.
Repository Citation
Palma Joy Strand and Gregory J. O'Meara S.J.,
Reclaiming the Constitution: "For There is Always Light, If Only We're Brave Enough to See It",
109 Marq. L. Rev. 1235
(2026).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol109/iss4/3