Diane Rufino
July 12, 2013

I am an attorney. I studied the law. I studied Constitutional Law. Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Analyst, was my Con Law professor. He not only taught me constitutional law jurisprudence, he instilled a passion for understanding how this great document defines our government and protects our individual rights.

Having said that, it should be noted that law schools teach “Constitutional Law” and not the Constitution. They don’t teach the Constitution from the founders’ point of view. They don’t refer to the Federalist Papers and other founder era sources. And they rarely even refer to decisions as “judicial activism.” They teach the Constitution not according to its intended meaning, but rather according to the many landmark Supreme Court decisions that have interpreted it, defined it, and in almost all cases, broadened it.

As one law student put it: “I don’t know about the experience of other people who have attended law school, but I’d estimate that we spent perhaps only 0.5 percent of the time between two semesters of Constitutional Law learning about what the Constitution says and what the founding fathers intended. We spent no time on the Federalist Papers, and the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was only mentioned as a historical fact. No more was discussed on the matter. The intent of the Founders can’t be found anywhere in my Con Law book or any other books we read. In fact, the only time I recall reading about the founder’s intent was when Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, the concurring opinion, or the dissent in cases.”

Read more

Related Articles