Abstract

This thesis is an extensive study of Robert Bork's theory of original understanding and its viability as a method of constitutional interpretation. After introducing the basis of his philosophy in The Tempting of America, I analyze Bork's position on the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision and explain how Bork's failure to discredit this case defines the inability of his theory to accomplish anything. Next, I explore the history of antitrust legislation and explain how Bork's stance toward antitrust contradicts everything he supposedly represents. In my conclusion, I suggest that, given Bork's hypocritical inclinations, the Senate justifiably rejected his nomination.