Article Page
Published by Keshav Arun on July 30th, 2026
Privacy Notice
All quoted materials on this page are reproduced verbatim from Professor Pamela S. Karlan. Minor formatting adjustments may be made for readability. All quoted material remains the property of its respective authors, speakers, or copyright holders and is provided for educational, research, and commentary purposes.
Professor Pamela S. Karlan
Professor Pamela S. Karlan is a Stanford Law professor, constitutional scholar, and former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. Because of her experience in constitutional law, voting rights litigation, and protecting civil liberties, we interviewed her for her perspective on how democratic values and individual rights can be preserved as society and government evolve.
Who Interprets the Constitution?
There are various ways of interpreting the constitution, textualists interpret it by understanding what the founders would've thought when writing the constitution. But, there are also consequentialists, those who care about the consequences of an action over what the founders truly thought.
Understanding that there are vast views of interpreting the constitution, it begs the question, when different public officials interpret the Constitution differently, what gives one interpretation legitimacy over the other?
Professor Karlan answered, "There are two ways of thinking about or answering that question. One is descriptively and the other is normative. So descriptively, it depends on the hierarchy among the officials. In the United States, if different courts interpret the Constitution differently and the U.S. Supreme Court says this is the correct interpretation, then that controls. On the other hand, Justice Robert Jackson once said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. So, if you have an interpretation of the Constitution's text that fits the text but it seems absurd or it seems self-destructive, someone who's more of a consequentialist will say, I'm going with the more consequential."
However, beliefs and societal norms do change. As Professor Karlan pointed out through many American Constitution Society (ACS) videos, it is tremendously important to have a constitution that keeps political change open. In our discussion she added on how, "A lot of the words in the Constitution are quite open-ended, like equal protection. For example, in 1789, equal protection, if we had had it then, or in 1868, didn't require treating men and women equally because society didn't think of them as equal. And today it does. So, that's what I mean by saying the words of the Constitution don't change, but our understanding of those words might change."
Why Can't One Branch Hold All The Power?
One huge question in Political Science is, “Why did the founders divide national security powers between Congress and the executive government instead of giving one branch of complete authority?”
When we asked Professor Karlan this, she replied, “James Madison talks about this a little bit in the Federalist Papers – that one of the best ways to protect liberty is to have the different parts of the government competing a bit with each other.”
This is crucial because when the branches are competing with each other for authority, a representative from the legislative branch may question why certain actions were done by the executive branches, and during those times of questioning, true intentions may be revealed. This “competition” preserves actions done with liberty, and stands as a roadblock for actions done that try to hurt liberty, especially with the intention of national security.
Professor Karlan explains further, “If you give supreme power to just one branch, that branch can override lots of people’s liberty. You’re kind of seeing that now with the fact that Congress is so quiescent and you have a president who’s very aggressive.”
What Is The Point Of A Government?
Many argue the point of a government is for the citizens to have a nation they can have safety in. In fact, In Federalist No. 23 (1787), Alexander Hamilton argued that one of the principal purposes of government is to provide for “the common defense” and preserve “the public peace,” requiring enough power to protect the nation from threats.
However when asked the point of a government and why liberty should is important for a government to prioritize, Professor Karlan replied, "the point of government is to benefit people. The point of government is not to benefit government. Liberty, most people consider liberty a very important part of their own lives. The ability to choose where you live, what job you have, whom to marry, whether to have children or not, what religion to follow, all of those are aspects of liberty. And without having those kinds of choices, it's hard to be really fully human."
This is crucial because it explains that not only that liberty is important to a functioning democracy, but also to live a "good" life fundamentally requires freedom.