FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1563857500> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1563857500 startingPage "1115" @default.
• W1563857500 abstract "TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. POSSIBLE INTERPRETIVE METHODOLOGIES II. DEBATES SURROUNDING THE METHODOLOGIES III. POSSIBLE RESPONSES TO THE PUZZLE A. The Natural Law Response B. The Rule-of-Recognition Response C. Dworkin's Constructive Interpretation Response D. The Skeptical Response CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION This Essay focuses on a basic puzzle about constitutional interpretation: Are there legally correct answers to contested questions concerning methodology for interpreting U.S. Constitution? Consider, for example, debate about originalism. (1) Originalists claim that questions of constitutional law should be resolved by looking to original public meaning of provisions in text of Constitution or original intentions of Framers concerning how text should be applied. Nonoriginalists deny that either original meaning or original intentions are touchstone for constitutionality. Is it case that one party to this debate is legally correct and other party legally incorrect? Or consider representation-reinforcement theory of interpretation proposed by John Hart Ely, (2) building on famous footnote four of United States v. Carolene Products Co. (3) Ely's theory is one particular version of nonoriginalism. Ely argues that Constitution should be interpreted so as to improve process of majoritarian democracy. (4) In Ely's view, First Amendment is centrally a protection for political speech required for free and fair elections and for process of crafting legislation, rather than a broader protection for all speech as a basic aspect of human liberty. (5) The Equal Protection Clause is seen to be focused on cleansing political process of prejudice against racial minorities, rather than as, more minimally, a formal nondiscrimination guarantee or, more ambitiously, a constraint on laws that have a substantially disparate impact on minorities. (6) And, for Ely, Due Process Clause is not a guarantee of substantive rights that would serve as constraints on a well-functioning political process, such as rights to contraception, abortion, or assisted suicide. (7) When Ely argues in favor of a representation-reinforcement methodology, while others disagree, can it be that one side to this dispute is legally correct and that other side is making a legal mistake? For short, I will refer to following as the Puzzle: Are there legally correct answers to contested questions concerning methodology for interpreting U.S. Constitution? In stating Puzzle, I have chosen my words carefully. I am asking whether there are legally correct answers to contested interpretive questions, not whether there are correct answers in some other sense) My focus is on contested questions of interpretive methodology. For reasons that will emerge in this Essay, I do not think it is hard to explain how there can be legally correct answers to uncontested interpretive questions. In particular, vast majority of U.S. jurists and scholars and, I assume, citizens and officials agree that text of 1787 Constitution, as amended, is primary source of constitutional law. Some believe it is sole source; (9) others believe that text can be supplemented with unwritten sources of constitutional law; (10) but no one espouses an approach to constitutional interpretation that would ignore text or give it a minor role. Thus, explaining why it is legally correct for a U.S. judge to decide a constitutional case by looking to text of 1787 Constitution, as amended--rather than text of French Constitution, German Constitution, or any other text outlining a system of governmental institutions and individual rights--is not too difficult. What is difficult is explaining why it would be legally correct for a U.S. judge to interpret that text using method M, rather than method M*, when both method Mand method M* have significant support among jurists, scholars, officials, and citizens--when there is no consensus regarding which method ought to be used. …" @default.
• W1563857500 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1563857500 creator A5004570132 @default.
• W1563857500 date "2012-03-01" @default.
• W1563857500 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1563857500 title "Interpretive Contestation and Legal Correctness" @default.
• W1563857500 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W1563857500 type Work @default.
• W1563857500 sameAs 1563857500 @default.
• W1563857500 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1563857500 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1563857500 hasAuthorship W1563857500A5004570132 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C126806153 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C2776217807 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C2776512386 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C2779160553 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C2780292567 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C2780761950 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C2780946765 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C111472728 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C126806153 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C138885662 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C144024400 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C17744445 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C18650270 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C199539241 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C2776154427 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C2776217807 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C2776512386 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C2779160553 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C2780292567 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C2780761950 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C2780876879 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C2780946765 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C41895202 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C527412718 @default.
• W1563857500 hasConceptScore W1563857500C94625758 @default.
• W1563857500 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1563857500 hasLocation W15638575001 @default.
• W1563857500 hasOpenAccess W1563857500 @default.
• W1563857500 hasPrimaryLocation W15638575001 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W1464502090 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W1557033578 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W1589976380 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W201583977 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W2033881795 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W2544856490 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W2899696405 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W2978006164 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W3042606302 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W3093653186 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W3122986592 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W3123113789 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W3123794787 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W3125108635 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W3158950036 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W316671885 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W329405221 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W2167748097 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W2607081250 @default.
• W1563857500 hasRelatedWork W3124110134 @default.
• W1563857500 hasVolume "53" @default.
• W1563857500 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1563857500 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1563857500 magId "1563857500" @default.
• W1563857500 workType "article" @default.