jeffrey rosen is legal affairs editor of the new republic. he is also professor of law at george washington university and a non-resident senior fellow of the brookings institution. he is the author of about six books. >> four, not six. >> four, two in the works. his essays and appeared in "the new york times -- have appeared in "the new york times" and other publications and he has been called the most widely read legal commentator. thank you for being here. >> thank you. i'm glad to be included in this stimulus -- stimulating conversation. i know you'll appreciate reading my colleagues provocative paper -- my colleague's provocative paper. there is much that i admire. i understand that he believes the supreme court has not had a history unconstitutional interpretation. i like that he realizes that is a good thing that mobilize americans are reading the constitution, marching on the mall, and making judgments about what it's words mean. i admire and agree with him that, throughout history, constitutional change has come from those mobilized

professor jeffrey rosen is a legal affairs editor. he is also a professor of law at george washington university. he is a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution. he is the author of about six books. >> for, not 6. >> two in the works. his essays have appeared in the "new york times" and " ththe atlantic monthly." he is the most widely read legal commentator according to the "los angeles times." thank you for coming. >> thank you for including me in this stimulating conversation. thank you for prof. codevilla for having written this provocative paper. i know you have all enjoyed reading it. there is much in his paper that i very much admire. i'd like the fact that he understands that the supreme court throughout history has not had a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. i liked the fact that he realizes it is a good thing that globalized americans are reading the constitution, marching on the mall, and making their own judgments about what the words mean. in meyer him at agree with them that constitutional change

professor jeffrey rosen is a legal affairs editor. he is also a professor of law at george washington university. hes a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution. he is the author of about six books. >> for, not 6. >> two in the works. his essays have appeared in the "new york times" and " ththe atlantic monthly." he is the most widely read legal commentator according to the "los angeles times." ank you for coming. >> thank you for including me in this stimulating conversation. thank you for prof. codevilla for having written this provocative paper. i know you have all enjoyed reading it. there is much in his paper that i very much admire. i'd like the fact that he understas that thesupreme court throughout history has not had a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. i liked the fact that he realizes it is a good thing th globalized americans are reading the constitution, marching on the mall, and making their own judgments about what the words mean. in meyer him at agree with them that constitutional change --

jeffrey rosen uses it to mean when judges strike down a law. the right libertarian's commitee part years -- libertarians, tea partiers, say it means when a dead substitutes his own opinion -- when a judge to substitute his own opinion of the law. cause he likes a law, he does not apply the constitution to strike it down. i guess what i am asking is, is there a sense in which either that difference of definition could be acknowledged to help the debate? is there a truce in which neither side uses that term a again? >> thank you. usinge tried to avoid that term. i know it is contested. i started [unintelligible] i couldn't help myself. i use it as a shorthand for striking down laws. it is a neual definition. it does not say whether it is good or bad. i think the constitution properly requires that. i think it is a neutral term. judges should not substitute their own opinions for those of the law. >> that has always been. >> that. it and helpful -- un ishelpful -- is unhelpful. it is in the e ye of the. holder -- it is in the eye of the holder. di