Writing in the New York Times Magazine, Jeffrey Rosen closely examined "Constitution in Exile," an "increasingly active judicial movement" of conservative scholars, public-interest lawyers and activist judges. Its ascendancy is only a "remote" possibility, even with conservatives in charge of the White House and Congress, Rosen predicts. But he explains that if that were to happen, it could overturn decades of environmental laws and regulations, along with other 20th century extensions of government authority that began under President Franklin Roosevelt.

The Constitution in Exile movement contrasts with "originalism," another conservative legal doctrine represented by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Originalists are leery of "interpreting the Constitution in light of present-day social developments" and "are generally skeptical of constitutional rights -- like the right to abortion -- that don't appear explicitly in the text of the Constitution." Instead, Constitution in Exile supports legal doctrines "that established firm limitations on state and federal power before the New Deal" and is "not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures."

Rosen concludes that "America, at the moment, is engaged in an important debate about the relative merits and dangers of the market economy, and the advocates of the Constitution in Exile are aware that they cannot achieve ultimate success without persuading a majority of the American people to embrace their vision."

See: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00D17F63E5A0C748DDDAD0894DD404482