Over a century after the Progressives’ devised “living constitutionalism,” its latter day adherents have fought conservatives’ originalism to an intellectual standstill and a political rout. Bookended by discussions of three books by legal liberals (Jack Balkin, Erwin Chemerinsky, Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss) and a book and article by progressive constitutional scholars (Mark Tushnet, David Pozen and Adam Samaha), this essay argues that legal liberalism today is intellectually exhausted. In developing a “critical constitutionalism,” those to their left have better identified constitutional law and theory’s pathologies and potential. The overarching claim is that professional and ideological factors have led legal liberals to misapprehend the uses and limitations of constitutional theory. The essay concludes by suggesting legal liberals move past debates about originalism and begin to think anew about what (legal) liberalism has to offer American constitutionalism.

中文翻译：

---

寻找锚点：从进步派到特朗普的活宪政

在进步派设计出“活立宪主义”一个多世纪后，其后期的追随者与保守派的原创主义作斗争，导致知识分子停滞不前和政治溃败。本文以法律自由主义者（杰克·巴尔金、欧文·切莫林斯基、杰弗里·斯通和大卫·施特劳斯）的三本书和进步宪法学者（马克·图什内特、大卫·波森和亚当·萨马哈）的一本书和一篇文章的讨论为结尾，认为今天的法律自由主义是智力疲惫。在发展“批判宪政”时，他们的左翼人士更好地确定了宪法和理论的病态和潜力。最重要的主张是，专业和意识形态因素导致法律自由主义者误解了宪法理论的用途和局限性。