Reading Between the Lines, Part 1 (LAW-CONST2)
This lecture introduces the method of holistic constitutional interpretation, applying the absurdity canon to the Vice President's impeachment trial and the 'judge in own case' rule. It also examines McCulloch v. Maryland, demonstrating how John Marshall inferred a national bank's legality from the document's overall purpose, not explicit text.
Read literally, the Constitution seems to let the vice president preside at his own impeachment trial. Akhil Reed Amar shows why that cannot be the right answer.
This lecture introduces holistic reading: interpreting the Constitution as one whole document rather than word by word. Amar traces the absurdity canon to Blackstone, the era's leading legal authority, and applies it to the impeachment puzzle and to the rule that no one can be a judge in their own case. He then turns to McCulloch v. Maryland, where John Marshall upheld a national bank with no "bank clause" by reading the document as a whole in light of its purposes.