Jamie's research is in the field of constitutional law, with a particular interest in constitutional law of the United States. His PhD thesis explores issues arising from NFIB v. Sebelius which concerned the constitutionality of President Obama’s healthcare reforms. The Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB has exposed many problems within American constitutionalism as the reforms raise questions about the interpretation and understanding of the Commerce Clause, constitutional legitimacy, and the structure of federalism.
Jamie's thesis aims to propose a methodology that balances the Constitution’s competing visions, each of which has legitimate roots in American history. Central to this work will be crafting a theory of federalism that embraces nationalism, states’ rights and individual liberty, and along with it, forming a system of interpretation that appreciates both original intent and living constitutionalism. It will be shown that by using the methods deployed in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence the Supreme Court will be better able to achieve balance between original principles and contemporary expectations.