Criminal Law Library Blog
In The Golden Rule of Constitutional Interpretation, published in VERDICT: Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia on July 1, 2025, UC Davis Law Professor Vikram David Amar and Professor Emeritus Alan E. Brownstein explore the imperative of applying constitutional principles consistently, irrespective of political affiliations or desired outcomes. Drawing on examples from case law involving free speech, federalism, and equal protection, the authors advocate for what they term a “Golden Rule” approach to constitutional interpretation: legal standards should be applied evenly, even when doing so produces results that conflict with one’s own political or ideological preferences. While recognizing the inherent challenges in suppressing partisan impulses, Amar and Brownstein emphasize that fidelity to this rule is essential for maintaining the legitimacy and integrity of constitutional adjudication
Excerpt from The Golden Rule of Constitutional Interpretation, by law professors Amar and Brownstein
But for constitutional law to work effectively and to fulfill the promise of the document’s preamble, “We the People” have to recognize the importance of grounding the interpretation of the Constitution on something that does have religious overtones—the Golden Rule. That is, do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
What this means for constitutional law purposes really isn’t all that complicated. But it is difficult to accomplish, because it requires people to subordinate some of their own substantive desires and perceived needs in the service of a higher principle—the even-handed application of constitutional structures and mandates. Put simply, in this context the Golden Rule means that the Constitution protects the other guy to the same extent that it protects us. The government must treat the other guy the way we want it to treat us.
Additional References:
Golden rule definition. Lexis/Nexis 2025
Golden Rule (Law) Wikipedia.