Abstract
John Rohr’s work made the Constitution central to American administration. He created a normative conception of administrative constitutionalism, and through textual interpretation he argued the framers’ ideas of administration are consistent with modern administration. I interrogate Rohr’s interpretations to argue that he overstated the compatibility of the framers’ vision and modern administration. Thus, I argue, to support Rohr’s normative program we must turn away from Rohr’s static Constitution and, instead, engage theories of constitutional change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
