Private: Sunstein and Barnett Debate the "Constitution in Exile"

This week the Legal Affairs Debate Club features Professors Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett debating the restoration of the Constitution in Exile.
Sunstein opened the debate by the examining the effects of a return to the Constitution in Exile:

Would the Constitution of 1787, or of 1920, increase our liberty or diminish it? For now, let's just notice the real radicalism of any effort to go in that direction. In 1787 and in 1920, racial segregation by the federal and state governments was believed to be constitutional. In 1787 and 1920, sex discrimination by government was just fine. In 1787 and 1920, there was no general right of privacy. In 1920, free speech was understood quite narrowly. Congress would almost certainly have been forbidden to protect workers' right to strike. In 1920, minimum wage laws were unconstitutional.

Barnett responded by taking issue with the phrase "Constitution in Exile":

Let me begin this week-long exchange, Cass, with a denial. There is no "Constitution in Exile" movement, either literally or figuratively. . . . Cass, you say the "Constitution in Exile" refers "to the Constitution of around 1930, before Roosevelt's New Deal." The problem here is that I know of no one (including Judge Ginsburg), whether originalist or not, who entirely agrees with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution in 1930 or at some earlier point. . . .Is a commitment to the original public meaning of the entire text of the Constitution as amended accurately characterized as a commitment to a "Constitution in Exile," as you suggest?

The professors will post new entries on this topic each day this week.