Even those old enough to remember may have forgotten that Jim
was co-editor of The Political Science Reviewer for its first
three issues. Indeed, he was in every sense a founding father of this
journal, his early efforts contributing enormously to its success over
the ensuing decades. Others perhaps are more familiar with his work
as founder and president of the Center for Judicial Studies (1983–
1993) and as editor of Benchmark, a lively, provocative, and highly
readable quarterly journal that critically examined the major issues
surrounding the uses and abuses of judicial power. Both these
undertakings in large measure stemmed from Jim’s conviction that
there were legitimate views on perennial political problems and
concerns that were either ignored or unjustifiably disparaged in the
dominant academic and legal forums. That such was the case
hardly surprised him since he had come to realize at an early stage
of his academic career that his basic beliefs and values were oceans
apart from those that predominated in the major universities and
law schools.
Jim was a son of the South and proud of his heritage. I used to
kid him by saying that he wasn’t a “real” southerner because he had
grown up in the Washington, D.C., suburbs of northern Virginia—
an area, I took delight in pointing out, no more southern in character
than Boston. Nevertheless, as his friends well knew, his love of the
South and its traditions was genuine. Indianapolis, where he served
as Director of Publications for Liberty Fund, was as far North as he
ventured on a permanent basis, and it was a foregone conclusion that
when the time came for him to leave Liberty Fund, he would retire
to deepest Virginia.
It is fair to say that Jim was most concerned throughout his adult
life with the distortions of and departures from the values and
principles—federalism, the separation of powers, limited government,
the rule of law—upon which he believed our republic was
founded. He looked upon the Constitution as embodying fundamental
law, as a document to be treated with the utmost care and
respect, to be interpreted only according to well accepted and
traditional canons. Thus, he had little patience with those who spoke
of a “living” Constitution that might be interpreted in light of
evolving contemporary standards.
His deep regard for constitutionalism and the rule of law
accounts for his concentration on the thought of Justice Story for his
doctoral dissertation at the University of Virginia, despite Story’s
nationalist leanings, which Jim did not share. The book that emerged
from his thesis, Justice Story and the American Constitution: A
Study in Political and Legal Thought, is timeless and ranks among
the very best of its genre. But he also possessed an abiding interest
in the constitutional theories and interpretations of the Jeffersonians:
he was a prime mover in securing the publication of St. George
Tucker’s major writings, and one of his last contributions was an
Introduction to a new edition of John Taylor’s New Views of the
Constitution of the United States.
In the memorial tribute to Jim by the Virginia Legislature, he is
credited with contributing to a better understanding of “the fundamental
principles of governance embodied in the United States
Constitution.” In fact, in describing Jim’s contributions the phrase
“principles of constitutional governance” or a variant thereof is
frequently employed in this tribute. And properly so. One of the
major reasons Jim entered the University of Virginia law school in
mid-life was to see if a legal training might open up new avenues or
insights into the foundations of constitutionalism and the American
experience. While this excursion proved disappointing, his efforts to
discover and explain the fundamental principles of the American
constitutional order continued unabated. This can be seen in his
magnificent Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the
Constitutional Principles of American Government, a work designed,
as the subtitle suggests, as an introduction to the American
constitutional system. Yet the depth and range of the text is remarkable,
beginning with an extended discussion of the English contributions
to the development of American institutions and concluding
with an analysis of the historical and theoretical approaches to
constitutional interpretation. Throughout he identifies and addresses
the enduring questions and concerns that have arisen over
the basic constitutional provisions and principles. Suffice it to say,
Jim’s work thoroughly puts to shame the numerous American
government textbooks—most, with their cartoons and pictures,
pegged to a twelve year old mentality—that have come to dominate
the market.
In the late 1980s Jim teamed up with Mel Bradford to produce
a revised and enlarged edition of Jonathan Elliot’s Debates. They
planned on seven volumes, but a combination of factors—not the
least of which was Mel’s death in 1994—derailed this undertaking.
They did complete two volumes of the series: one containing
extensive biographical information on the delegates to the Philadelphia
Convention, and the other the deliberations of the Convention
as reported by James Madison with extensive notations. Given the
high quality of these volumes with others I—and others—urged him
to give priority to this project once he had settled down in Meherrin.
Though he agreed, his poor health prevented him from making
much headway. In his last years he was frustrated at being unable to
complete much of what he intended to do in his “retirement,”
particularly with respect to a vast body of materials he had collected
on the theory and practice of American federalism.
Jim’s collaboration with me in editing the Gideon edition of The
Federalist is further testimony to his interest in the underlying
principles of the American political order, but also of his keen desire
to render them comprehensible to a wider audience. He was most
insistent that we include a “Reader’s Guide” that would provide a
brief synopsis of each essay and provide the reader with an
overview of the work as a whole. Likewise, he felt the imperative
need for a “Glossary” that would define or explain references in
these essays to individuals, events, and places in order that the
reader would better appreciate Publius’s arguments and reasoning.
Numerous comments from my students who have used this edition
bear out his judgment.
While Jim taught at various institutions over the years (the
University of Alabama, Hampden-Sydney College, Emory University,
and Claremont-McKenna College), he was also attracted to the
realm of practical politics. During the 1970s and 80s, he worked in
various capacities on the Senate side, the most notable being Chief
Counsel and Staff Director of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the
Separation of Powers. Thus, he had first-hand knowledge of the
operations of our political system. During this period he still
managed to participate in the academic world by contributing to the
Journal of Politics and serving on its editorial board.
It would be nice to say that Jim was optimistic about America’s
future, that he believed his efforts would eventually lead to a better
understanding of the underlying principles and values of the American
political system. But he was deeply pessimistic. A work that he
co-authored early in his career with his good friend Russell Kirk, The
Political Principles of Robert A. Taft, identified standards against
which he could measure his later experiences on the Hill, and he
would frequently speak of his disillusionment resulting from the
politics of crass expediency practiced by the elected representatives
of both parties, conservatives and liberals alike. He was even
more disillusioned with regard to the wider political culture. I
recall him saying that the degenerate culture of the 1940s described
by Richard Weaver in Ideas Have Consequences actually
looked benign when compared with our culture a half-century
later. He was utterly appalled by the massive ignorance of our
heritage that prevailed at all levels. Nor did he believe our
educational system could help in alleviating this condition without
a thorough transformation that political leaders were too cowardly
to undertake.
His pessimism, however, did not deter him from doing his best
to turn things around. His legacy is a body of work that illuminates
in a clear and coherent fashion the foundations and principles of
the American constitutional order. In his own way, he has provided
us with a benchmark that tells us just how far we have departed
from our traditional roots. And for this alone we owe him our
profound gratitude.
George W. Carey
