In a previous post, I started exploring the notion, discussed by Mark Tushnet and David Strauss, that Democrats have no constitutional vision. At least, not in the same way that the social conservative “movement” has a constitutional vision. My feeling is that the Democrats do not currently have a consistent vision for interpretation of constitutional power and structure, and that Tushnet is correct in supposing that the party has been “opportunistic” about pursuing its agenda.
All of which raises the question: should we care? Does it matter that we don’t have a consistent constitutional vision? (After all, it’s pretty likely that Republicans are less consistent in their approach to constitutional interpretation and power than they’d like to admit, as Tushnet promised to explain in a future post).
Perhaps the best place to start is to ask, what purposes would a Democratic constitutional vision serve?