We may receive an affiliate commission from anything you buy from this article.
New York Times bestselling author and humorist A.J. Jacobs previously wrote about his experiment in living life as interpreted by the Old and New Testaments in "The Year of Living Biblically." Now, in an effort to fully understand our nation's founding document, Jacobs embarked on a year-long quest to be the original originalist, in "The Year of Living Constitutionally" (to be published by Crown May 7). Yes, muskets were involved.
Read the book's "preamble" below, and don't miss John Dickerson's interview with A.J. Jacobs on "CBS News Sunday Morning" May 5!
"The Year of Living Constitutionally" by A.J. Jacobs
Prefer to listen? Audible has a 30-day free trial available right now.
The Preamble
I recently discovered that if you walk around New York City while carrying an eighteenth-century musket, you get a lot of questions.
"You gonna shoot some redcoats?"
"Can you please leave?"
"What the hell, man?"
Living Constitutionally: A Modern Experiment
Questions aside, a musket can come in handy. When I arrived at my local coffee shop at the same time as another customer, he told me, "You go first. I'm not arguing with someone holding that thing."
Why was I carrying around a ten-pound firearm from the 1790s? Well, it's because I'm deep into my year of living constitutionally. For reasons I'll explain shortly, I've pledged to try to express my constitutional rights using the tools and mindset of when they were written in 1787. My plan is to be the original originalist.
I will bear arms, but only those arms available when the Second Amendment was written. Hence the musket and its accompanying bayonet.
I will exercise my First Amendment right to free speech—but I'll do it the old-fashioned way: by scratching out pamphlets with a quill pen and handing them out on the street.
My right to assemble? I will assemble at coffeehouses and taverns, not over Zoom or Discord.
If I'm to be punished, I will insist my punishment not be cruel and unusual, at least not cruel and unusual by eighteenth-century standards (when, unfortunately, Americans considered it acceptable to have your head stuck in a pillory and get pelted by mud and rotten vegetables).
Thanks to the Third Amendment, I may choose to quarter soldiers in my apartment—but I will kick them onto the street if they misbehave.
Exploring the Constitution Through the Eyes of the Founding Fathers
Delving into the essence of the Constitution involves understanding the rights as interpreted during the era of Washington and Madison. The goal is to immerse oneself in the mindset of the Founding Fathers to decipher its relevance in contemporary society. The quest is to determine what aspects need modernization, what can be disregarded, and whether there are valuable insights from the eighteenth century that deserve revival. The ultimate aim is to unravel the enigma of this profoundly influential American document.
This journey commenced due to three pivotal realizations prompted by the events of the past year.
The first realization underscores the profound impact of the 4,543-word Constitution, penned on calfskin during a historic Philadelphia summer, on our daily lives. Recent contentious rulings by the Supreme Court on a myriad of issues, ranging from women's rights to gun rights, environmental policies, and religious matters, all trace their origins back to the Constitution.
The second realization highlights the startling dearth of knowledge about the Constitution. Many individuals, including the author, had never fully read the document. While familiar with snippets like the "We the People" preamble and the First Amendment, a comprehensive understanding of the entire Constitution was lacking.
And third, I realized just how much the Constitution is a national Rorschach test. Everyone, including me, sees what they want. Does the Constitution support laissez-faire gun rights, or does it support strict gun regulation? Does it prohibit school prayer or not? Depends on whom you ask.
And it's not just the issues we're divided on—it's the Constitution itself. Is the Constitution a document of liberation, as I was taught in high school? Or is it, as some critics argue, a document of oppression? Should we venerate this brilliant road map that has arguably guided American prosperity and expanded freedom for 230-plus years? Or should we be skeptical of this set of rules written by wealthy racists who thought tobacco-smoke enemas were cutting-edge medicine?*
[* Tobacco-smoke enemas were a mainstream medical treatment for all sorts of ills. They involved hoses, smoke, and hand-powered bellows. It is quite possibly the origin of the phrase "blowing smoke up your ass."]
It reminds me of a William Blake quote I once read about the Bible:
[We] both read the Bible day and night
But thou read'st black where I read white.
And, as with the Bible, whether you see black or white in the Constitution depends largely on one crucial question: What is your method for interpreting this text?
Should we try to discover the original meaning from when the text was written? Or does the meaning of the text evolve with the times?
Exploring the Bible through Literal Living
In fact, the Bible-Constitution parallels helped give birth to this book. I decided to steal an idea from myself. Several years ago, I wrote a book called The Year of Living Biblically, in which I explored the ways we interpret the Bible. I did this by following the rules in the Good Book as literally as possible. I followed the Ten Commandments, but I also followed the hundreds of more obscure rules. I grew some alarmingly sprawling facial hair (Leviticus says you should not shave the corners of your beard) and tossed out my poly-cotton sweaters (Leviticus says you cannot wear clothes made of two kinds of fabric). I became the ultimate fundamentalist.
The project was absurd at times but also enlightening and inspiring. I found that some aspects of living biblically changed my life for the better (the emphasis on gratitude, for instance). I also learned the dangers of taking the Bible too literally (I don't recommend stoning an adulterer in Central Park, even if those stones are pebble-sized, as mine were). And I learned how challenging it is to figure out what we should replace literalism with.
The Constitution and the Bible: A Comparison
Many scholars have drawn parallels between the Constitution and the Bible. The Constitution is often referred to as the sacred text of our civic religion, with delegates being likened to "demigods" by Jefferson. Similar to the ongoing debate about the interpretation of the Bible, there is a continuous argument between originalists, who advocate for sticking to the document's initial meaning, and living constitutionalists, who argue that the interpretation should evolve over time. In recent years, originalists have gained significant influence, with five out of six conservative Supreme Court justices subscribing to some form of originalism. This shift has impacted rulings on various issues such as abortion and gun rights. Feeling the need to delve deeper, one man embarked on a year-long journey to live according to the Constitution's original meaning.
Excerpted from "The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution's Original Meaning" by A.J. Jacobs. Published by Crown, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC, New York. Copyright © 2024 by A.J. Jacobs.
Get the book here:
Buy locally from Bookshop.org
For more info:
- "The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution's Original Meaning" by A.J. Jacobs (Crown), in Hardcover, eBook and Audio formats, available May 7