Dan Epps

Yeah. So two decades later, apparently that article was relevant to figuring out whether domestic abusers can have guns. Yeah. So I thought maybe you might just tell our listeners the general thrust of the book. Obviously, it's a really big and important book, and there's more than can be summarized in a pithy few minutes.

But maybe we can just get that out, and then Will and I will engage you in conversation about it. But we think it's a book that I think it would be great for our listeners who are interested in constitutional law, questions like separation of powers, to know about. And it is the kind of book that I think would really change the way people think about some of these things who are not familiar.

But maybe we can just get that out, and then Will and I will engage you in conversation about it. But we think it's a book that I think it would be great for our listeners who are interested in constitutional law, questions like separation of powers, to know about. And it is the kind of book that I think would really change the way people think about some of these things who are not familiar.

Well, can I just ask a clarification on that question? I mean, I assume the people you're talking about are people that are skeptical about the idea of constitutional laws and enterprise practice by judges, right? They're not necessarily people that are skeptical of the idea that we have constitution that creates different institutions, right? That creates three branches and so forth.

Well, can I just ask a clarification on that question? I mean, I assume the people you're talking about are people that are skeptical about the idea of constitutional laws and enterprise practice by judges, right? They're not necessarily people that are skeptical of the idea that we have constitution that creates different institutions, right? That creates three branches and so forth.

Yeah. And Daryl, a question for you. I mean, I. I do think your book maybe has something to say to both in the sense that I take the book as not saying none of these things are possible.

Yeah. And Daryl, a question for you. I mean, I. I do think your book maybe has something to say to both in the sense that I take the book as not saying none of these things are possible.

You're saying that there are kinds of arrangements that are possible and you can take different views about them, but there are kind of accounts by which different groups in society come to agree on constitutional provisions as kind of coordinating rules and so forth, right? Yeah. That's right.

You're saying that there are kinds of arrangements that are possible and you can take different views about them, but there are kind of accounts by which different groups in society come to agree on constitutional provisions as kind of coordinating rules and so forth, right? Yeah. That's right.

So could we just – there's some pieces of this that I think I'm particularly excited to help our listeners understand because I think one of the really important things about this book is the way in which it shows that some of the debates we've been having are maybe in constitutional law are either kind of irrelevant or besides the point or at least – Perhaps that'd be phenomenal.

So could we just – there's some pieces of this that I think I'm particularly excited to help our listeners understand because I think one of the really important things about this book is the way in which it shows that some of the debates we've been having are maybe in constitutional law are either kind of irrelevant or besides the point or at least – Perhaps that'd be phenomenal.

And so, you know, question one as part of that is, you know, constitutional law has been obsessed for decades with these normative questions about, you know, how should we interpret the constitution? And yet it hasn't been asking for the most part, and this is one of the central contributions you've made, the kind of positive question, right? You know, about why is this possible at all?

And so, you know, question one as part of that is, you know, constitutional law has been obsessed for decades with these normative questions about, you know, how should we interpret the constitution? And yet it hasn't been asking for the most part, and this is one of the central contributions you've made, the kind of positive question, right? You know, about why is this possible at all?

I mean, why do you think that those questions haven't been asked? Why do you think that, and particularly the ratio has been so focused on this normative question about interpretive theory and stuff like what Will wants to persuade us of about originalism and all the other possible answers to that question?

I mean, why do you think that those questions haven't been asked? Why do you think that, and particularly the ratio has been so focused on this normative question about interpretive theory and stuff like what Will wants to persuade us of about originalism and all the other possible answers to that question?

Do you have a response, Will, as someone who continues to be very invested in the kind of normative debate about how to interpret the Constitution?

Do you have a response, Will, as someone who continues to be very invested in the kind of normative debate about how to interpret the Constitution?

If I can offer a side note, because you put the general law point on the table, I thought that was kind of interesting.

If I can offer a side note, because you put the general law point on the table, I thought that was kind of interesting.

as a set of ideas that people like Will and Steve have put forward and that I've piggybacked on a little bit, which in some ways maybe shows that originalists like Will are actually a more receptive audience for these kind of insights, to the extent that those arguments are kind of showing that things that we have treated as just kind of ordinary constitutional law now or maybe actually would have been thought of as more like international law.