Through the Hertog Constitutional Studies Program, Fayga Tziporah Soloveichik (n茅e Pinczower) (SCW 鈥27), a Straus Scholar and political science major, spent the summer of 2025 immersed in the study of the American founding, constitutional interpretation and the enduring tensions between judicial authority, democratic self-rule and state sovereignty. Drawing on the program鈥檚 historical foundations and her training in Jewish and Western texts at the Zahava and Moshael J. Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought, she explored how constitutional ideas are both preserved and contested across generations. Below, Fayga Tziporah reflects on her summer experience.
Engaging the Founders and Their Critics: A Straus Scholar at the Hertog Constitutional Studies Program
By Fayga Tziporah Soloveichik
During the summer of 2025, I participated in the Hertog Constitutional Studies Program, an experience that significantly deepened my appreciation for constitutional understanding and its application. The program opened with several days devoted to historical analysis and foundational documents, providing essential context for the second week of seminars, which focused more directly on constitutional interpretation and the courts.
One of the most memorable lectures from the first week was delivered by Professor Vincent Phillip Mu帽oz, who reminded us that we do not study the Founders because they were necessarily correct, but because they offer a thoughtful alternative. The essential question remains: Were they right? And if so, are their ideas right for this moment? I am not sure a conservative think tank would have endorsed that framing twenty years ago. That sense of restlessness鈥攖he tension between reverence for the Founders and the dynamic challenges of history鈥攔an throughout our readings and discussions.
On the second day of seminars, Professor Jeffrey K. Tulis offered the striking observation that the Anti-Federalists ultimately succeeded in shaping American thought鈥攎any foundational elements of conservative constitutionalism today are rooted in Anti-Federalist concerns, later addressed in the Federalist Papers.
Throughout the sessions, I greatly enjoyed the opportunity to learn more about the individuals who helped bring our nation into being. George Washington was discussed at length, and I was particularly struck by the anecdote that he grew frustrated when voluntarily consulting with the Senate and vowed never to return. Later, at the Presidential Library, Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky mused that part of what allowed Washington to relinquish power and retire was that he loved the life he was returning to. Washington didn鈥檛 need the prestigious title to feel complete. Unfortunately, such character is sorely lacking in political life today. That insight elevated Washington in my mind beyond a brilliantly capable leader to a wholesome and grounded man. Much to my excitement, Dr. Chervinsky showed us Washington鈥檚 handwritten annotations in his copy of the Constitution, which brought to life the great personality we were studying.
As the week progressed, we shifted our focus from the founding documents to the courts, a transition I found particularly riveting. In his address, Richard Brookhiser noted that Chief Justice John Marshall often quoted Alexander Hamilton verbatim in his judicial opinions. I found this fascinating鈥攏ot only because someone as visionary as Marshall, the man who helped shape the court, mimicked Hamilton鈥檚 words, but also because imagining a modern justice quoting a political figure would likely elicit mixed reactions. I wondered how the public of Marshall鈥檚 time responded.
That afternoon, Professor Adam White raised a legitimate concern voiced by Brutus, the Anti-Federalist writer. Brutus feared that Supreme Court justices, with lifetime appointments and final authority, would become 鈥渋ndependent of heaven itself.鈥 Ultimately, he predicted, the court would deprive the states of their powers. One might point to cases such as D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago as examples of those fears realized. Hamilton鈥檚 response in Federalist 78 emphasized the importance of the separation of powers but did not directly address the threat to state sovereignty. He also suggested that if Brutus鈥 fears were well-founded鈥攊f judges would indeed become nihilists鈥攖hen no courts could exist at all.
Professor Diana Schaub touched on this notion of judicial supremacy in her reading of Abraham Lincoln鈥檚 First Inaugural Address, in which he stated:
If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.鈥
Perhaps this concept鈥攁nd the conversation that followed鈥攃hallenged me most. While I agreed that the Dred Scott decision was wrong, I was hesitant to endorse what struck me as a destabilizing view of judicial authority. Nevertheless, I was and remain grateful for the opportunity to wrestle seriously with these questions alongside leading scholars. That opportunity came again during Professor Justin Driver鈥檚 lecture, where he spoke about what he deemed the conservative strain of the Warren Court鈥攁nother thought-provoking reframing.
One of my favorite speakers was Judge Roy Altman, who offered a practical application of the theoretical debates we had studied, marked by ambition and unrelenting intellectual honesty. I particularly enjoyed our pre-lecture conversation about Jewish law, which provided a meaningful bridge between constitutional interpretation and broader traditions of jurisprudence.
These moments鈥攆rom reading Hamilton, Brutus, Lincoln, and Marshall, to engaging with the probing questions of my peers and the diverse perspectives of our professors鈥攕haped more than just my understanding of constitutional texts. They compelled me to refine my thinking, question more deliberately and deepen my appreciation for the tensions inherent in a democratic republic.
Throughout the program, I sought to contribute meaningfully by preparing diligently, annotating texts closely and engaging respectfully with others鈥 perspectives. My fellow participants did the same, and I am incredibly grateful for what this wonderfully driven and thoughtful cohort taught me. I learned not only from the curriculum but also from their passion, discipline and integrity.
Being a Straus Scholar positioned me to take full advantage of this experience. The Straus Center鈥檚 commitment to rigorous inquiry, Jewish and Western texts, and moral seriousness gave me both the tools and the vocabulary to engage deeply with the constitutional tradition. My study of Jewish law shaped how I approached a program dedicated to American legal materials; often, my notes included references to Jewish legal concepts that aligned with, conflicted with or enriched the constitutional ideas under discussion. The Hertog Constitutional Studies Program was not a departure from Straus, but a continuation of it鈥攁nother dimension of a thoughtful, intellectual and moral pursuit.
To learn more about the Straus Scholars program, .
Subscribe to the Straus Center newsletter to stay up to date on the latest Straus Center events, publications and news.
To learn more about the Straus Center, click here. And be sure to like the Straus Center on , follow us on and , and connect with us on .
