FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W18246009> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W18246009 endingPage "483" @default.
• W18246009 startingPage "473" @default.
• W18246009 abstract "Constitutional law, as taught in American law schools today, is primarily a course in religious indoctrination. Stories are told about the gods and heroes that in part convey information, but mainly shape the character of the students, teaching them appropriate emotional reactions so that they can be good members of the community. My constitutional law teacher did not do it that way. He rejected the gods of the city. He brought in new gods. And he corrupted the young. Thirty years later, still corrupt but no longer young, I will do as my constitutional law teacher taught me, and disagree with him. One of the questions considered by the essays collected in this volume is: Is Originalism an effective bulwark against judicial activism? Or, is the approach just as susceptible to indeterminacy and abuse as any other judicial philosophy? On that score, Robert Bork, my constitutional law teacher, says: The interpretation of the Constitution according to the original understanding ... is the only method that can preserve the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the liberties of the people. Only that approach can lead to what Felix Frankfurter called the fulfillment of one of the greatest duties of a judge, the duty not to enlarge his authority. (1) I do not think that is true. I am deeply skeptical of the capacity of any methodology to constrain any interpreter and thereby to keep Americans from doing what they love to do, which is to find that their Constitution is good, and, therefore, contains what it needs to contain. I also have a second-order disagreement with that claim: I do not think it is very important. I will mainly discuss my grounds for skepticism about the substance of Bork's claim concerning originalism, and then briefly consider whether originalism's capacity to constrain interpreters is an important question. Can originalism, or any methodology, keep interpreters from interpreting the Constitution along the lines that they think good? I will give three grounds for thinking that it cannot, each of which relates to one of three slightly different ideas of what originalism is. Originalism is often understood as giving special place to the views of people at the point of origin in time of a legal text. Originalism means following the views of those people. If that is what originalism means, and if originalism is constraining, then people who had to be originalists because of their location in time, for example because they were located right after the Constitution was ratified, would have been more constrained than subsequent interpreters. That is unlikely, so it is unlikely that originalism in this sense is constraining. One way to see how unlikely is to read the first volume of David Currie's wonderful books about the Constitution in Congress. (2) In that book Currie recounts and analyzes in brilliant detail the arguments about the Constitution that took place when it was still new, at a time when every interpreter's methodology, whatever it was, had to be originalist, because the origin had been so recent. One lesson of Currie's books, including that first volume about the time of the Constitution's origin, is that interpreters' positions on constitutional questions overwhelmingly lined up with what they thought were good ideas. (3) Another example comes, not from the early history of the primary document, but from the early history of the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments, the Thirteenth Amendment. That Amendment was proposed by Congress in the late winter of 1865 and ratified in December of that year. (4) Within a year of its proposal, and within less than a year of its adoption, there was a major fight over what it meant. The primary question left unclear by the Amendment's text was whether it went beyond eliminating the forced labor relationship of master and slave, and also affected legal rights other than pure self-ownership. …" @default.
• W18246009 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W18246009 creator A5069094530 @default.
• W18246009 date "2008-03-22" @default.
• W18246009 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W18246009 title "On the Hypotheses That Lie at the Foundations of Originalism" @default.
• W18246009 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W18246009 type Work @default.
• W18246009 sameAs 18246009 @default.
• W18246009 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W18246009 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W18246009 hasAuthorship W18246009A5069094530 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C158071213 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C2776217807 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C2777366796 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C2778582213 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W18246009 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C111472728 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C138885662 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C144024400 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C158071213 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C17744445 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C18650270 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C199539241 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C2776154427 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C2776217807 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C2777366796 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C2778582213 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C2779103253 @default.
• W18246009 hasConceptScore W18246009C94625758 @default.
• W18246009 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W18246009 hasLocation W182460091 @default.
• W18246009 hasOpenAccess W18246009 @default.
• W18246009 hasPrimaryLocation W182460091 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W145732145 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W1557739976 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W1565001820 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W1565049232 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W1982830980 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W2192595556 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W2317726640 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W2596627483 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W272379245 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W281298597 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W298590055 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W2992251944 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W305094705 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W3123004203 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W3124564138 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W3124572777 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W329413228 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W831281140 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W85524309 @default.
• W18246009 hasRelatedWork W2752463917 @default.
• W18246009 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W18246009 isParatext "false" @default.
• W18246009 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W18246009 magId "18246009" @default.
• W18246009 workType "article" @default.