This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn’t just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law.
Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson’s phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration’s ideals can translate into concrete protections today.
Connect:
Chapters:
[00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell’s framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters
The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection.
[00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick’s thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions
Bolick argues the Declaration’s influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution.
[00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia’s 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories”
Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights.
[00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases)
Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes.
[00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford’s recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame
Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
