In their Winter 2019 edition, the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy published a series of works as part of their symposium on the life and career of Justice James Wilson.

William Ewald in his piece “James Wilson and the American Founding” reflected upon Wilson’s early life, his work with the Declaration of Independence, and his work with the Constitution. He focuses on Wilson’s important work in helping to form the principles of our nation.

For example, Ewald discusses Wilson’s important role in shaping the Constitution: "He was an energetic participant in the [Constitutional] debates, served on the Committee of Detail, was central to the design of the Presidency, and alone among the delegates urged a democratic Constitution that anticipates the world of the nineteenth century." Similarly, with the Declaration of Independence, Ewald highlights the important role of James Wilson, particularly in influencing the document’s preamble: “As for the Declaration, I would emphasize two points. First, Wilson’s Considerations pamphlet of 1774 almost certainly supplied Jefferson with the language of the Preamble. But secondly, as far as the surviving evidence shows, Wilson was the only one of the Founders to have thought of the Preamble as a statement of the constitutional values of the new republic.” In short, it is important to note James Wilson's shaping hand in the "Declaration, his influence on the Preamble, and, most significantly, the fact that he is the only one of the Founders to treat the Preamble as a statement of the principles underlying the Constitution." He played a larger influential role in the American Founding than he is often given credit. You may read the whole piece* below: [gview file="http://commentary.jameswilsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/17-1-Ewald.pdf"] Michael W. McConnell in his piece "James Wilson’s Contributions to the Construction of Article II" discusses Wilson's role as the "principal architect of the executive branch." For example, "In the initial debate over the executive plank of the Virginia Plan on June 1, Wilson championed the controversial idea that the executive power should be vested in a single person, but forcefully rejected the idea that the powers of the President should be modeled on the prerogative powers of the English monarch." In this vein, "Wilson and the Committee carefully allocated the various royal prerogatives among Congress and the Presidency (eliminating some of them altogether), then vested the residuum in the President through the Vesting Clause." In short, Wilson's understanding of how the executive branch should function directly translates to the principles found within the executive branch today. You may read the whole piece* below: [gview file="http://commentary.jameswilsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/17-1-McConnell.pdf"] Christopher S. Yoo in his piece " James Wilson as the Architect of the American Presidency" similarly reflects on Wilson's role in influencing the nature of the executive branch. He goes more deeply into the pieces of the executive branch that Wilson sought to establish: "A close examination of the debates at the Constitutional Convention reveals that Wilson adopted a more pragmatic approach with respect to many aspects of the Presidency than is generally recognized, including the appointment power, the use of an advisory council, the veto power, and presidential selection." Yoo discusses an important example in which "Wilson’s flexibility regarding executive power is an event that is almost entirely overlooked:" his "break late in the Convention from his consistent support for a unitary executive by proposing the creation of an advisory council to assist the President on appointments." Such suggests that "suggests that Wilson held a less doctrinaire vision of executive power than is commonly recognized." You may read the whole piece* below: [gview file="http://commentary.jameswilsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/17-1-Yoo.pdf"] John Mikhail in his piece "James Wilson, Early American Land Companies, and the Original Meaning of 'Ex Post Facto Law'" argues that the term "ex post facto law” was wrongly interpreted from the Constitution to deal strictly with retroactive criminal laws. It is often suggested that "Justices Chase, Iredell, and Paterson adopted that erroneous interpretation in order to assist James Wilson, who by 1798 had fled from his creditors and needed retroactive bankruptcy protection." However, Mikhail indicates that this explanation is not the primary reasoning as to why the general understanding of "ex post facto law” departed from the Constitution. He notes that "there is a clear discrepancy between the narrow construal of “ex post facto law” and how that term was widely used in the founding era, which merits further investigation." In short in his piece, Mikhail examines "Wilson’s career as a land speculator" in order to shed light on ex post facto laws and their true understanding. You may read the whole piece* below: [gview file="http://commentary.jameswilsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/17-1-Mikhail.pdf"] Maeva Marcus in her piece "Wilson as a Justice" argues that James Wilson never fulfilled his potential as a Justice" and "explores his experience on the Supreme Court," explaining "the reasons that led to his failure to achieve the distinction that was expected of him." She argues that Wilson's time on the Court demonstrates "a distracted mind." She notes that "his constant preoccupation with his financial affairs, his need to stay out of Philadelphia to escape his creditors, a short stay in the Burlington, New Jersey jail, talk of impeachment—all conduced to keep him from his official duties." Although "he never lost faith in the Constitution and the national government," he did not reach his potential in his time serving on the Supreme Court. You may read the whole piece* below: [gview file="http://commentary.jameswilsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/17-1-Marcus.pdf"] Eric Nelson in his piece "James Wilson and the Ancient Constitution" analyzes the impact of British political history on early American political and constitutional thought, specifically looking at how James Wilson strayed away from the traditional Royal understanding of English history and committed himself to early Whig principles, namely their concept of representation. Nelson argues that "almost all American defenders of executive power in the 1770s and 1780s embraced [the] Royalist understanding of English history," involving feudal tenures, serfdom and absolute monarchy, and "integrated it into their political and constitutional theories." Consequently, their understanding of representation is impact by this monarchical history. Nelson indicates that Wilson, however, did not come to adopt this understanding, demonstrating "continuing allegiance to Whig historiography" and indicating "a fundamental philosophical disagreement with his allies over the question of representation." You may read the whole piece* below: [gview file="http://commentary.jameswilsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/17-1-Nelson.pdf"] Danielle Allen and Emily Sneff in their piece "Golden Letters: James Wilson, the Declaration of Independence, and the Sussex Declaration" analyze the Sussex Declaration and the Declaration of Independence and extract Wilson's ideas about popular sovereignty. Allen and Sneff note that, "James Wilson probably commissioned of the Sussex Declaration, a ceremonial parchment manuscript of the Declaration of Independence produced in the U.S. and dating to the 1780s." They two "explicate Wilson’s nationalism with a view to accounting for the full significance of the parchment." The document itself "supports the position that the new nation rested on the authority of a single national people rather than on the authority of federated states." In short, Allen and Sneff argue that the Sussex Declaration "may have been the text that Wilson used when he read the Declaration of Independence at the Constitutional Convention to make his argument about popular sovereignty." You may read the whole piece* below: [gview file="http://commentary.jameswilsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/17-1-AllenandSneff.pdf"] *All PDFs are from the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy.