Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution

Gordon R. Shea in Wisconsin Lawyer reviews this book by United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

This critique is convincing enough for those inclined to be open to it, but Breyer fails to show why "active liberty" should trump most other Constitutional approaches. Why is active liberty any more valid than, say, a natural law approach to the Constitution? Indeed, is active liberty a unique conception at all, or is it merely an uncredited twist on John Hart Ely-like principles that emphasize the Constitution's democratic functions?