ACS Cannot Rival the Federalist Society Due to Lack of Constitutional Theory
Source: Josh Blackman. "The American Constitution Society Still Does Not Have A Competing Theory Other Than "Antitrumpism"." February 17, 2026. reason.com
The Gist
The author argues that the American Constitution Society can't compete with the conservative Federalist Society because ACS only knows what it's against (Trump and originalism) but can't explain what constitutional theory it actually supports. Without a clear alternative vision, ACS will remain ineffective compared to the Federalist Society's clear originalist philosophy.
Conclusion
The American Constitution Society (ACS) cannot effectively compete with the Federalist Society because it lacks a coherent constitutional interpretation theory beyond opposing Trump and originalism
Premises
- ACS President Phil Brest acknowledges they need an 'affirmative message' for constitutional interpretation but cannot articulate what that theory would be
- ACS's current strategy is primarily 'antitrumpism' - opposing Trump's record rather than offering a specific alternative constitutional vision
- When asked about judicial philosophy and what future Democratic presidents should look for in judges, Brest has 'no clear answer'
- Numerous law review articles attacking originalism have failed to produce a viable competing theory
- There was an 'ideological battle that was waged and won' by originalists, making originalism the dominant jurisprudential force
Assumptions
- A successful legal organization needs a coherent positive theory, not just opposition to existing theories
- Originalism is currently the dominant and most viable constitutional interpretation theory
- The Federalist Society's success stems from having a clear ideological framework (originalism)
- Opposition-based strategies are inherently weaker than affirmative theoretical frameworks
- The battle over constitutional interpretation theory has already been decisively won by originalists