FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3125341036> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3125341036 endingPage "397" @default.
• W3125341036 startingPage "383" @default.
• W3125341036 abstract "INTRODUCTION Originalism and pragmatism are uneasy companions. This essay will attempt to make them friends. The usual view is that pragmatic interpretation has the essential virtue of making sure that the consequences of legal decisions will be good.1 Originalism, by contrast, is thought to focus on fidelity to the past and therefore to permit courts to reach undesirable, outdated results.2 We argue that originalism, although it requires judges to focus on the past, actually produces desirable rules today. Thus, it is originalism that is the genuinely pragmatic way to interpret the Constitution. Originalists in our view have largely failed to meet pragmatic objections. The argument that judges should be originalists simply because that is what the Framers intended not only is circular but fails to offer any assurance that good consequences attend originalism. The argument that originalism advances democracy seems weak and undeveloped because originalism sometimes requires judges to strike down a result of the democratic process when statutes or executive actions conflict with the original meaning of the Constitution.3 Finally, the argument that originalism offers clearer rules to constrain judges than other interpretive approaches contains some truth, but may not be enough to sustain the case for originalism.4 The benefits of judicial constraint are limited if judicial decisions, even though they are not discretionary, still impose substantial harms. Conversely, if constraint is the overriding objective, non-originalist doctrine may sometimes provide more constrained rules than the original meaning.5 However, pragmatic interpretation-which is usually thought to involve judges deciding particular cases based on their policy consequences-faces severe problems as an approach to resolving cases. People disagree about whether the consequences of particular decisions are good or bad. If the Constitution is to provide a framework for governance, it cannot simply replicate these disagreements.6 Or to put the objection to pragmatic constitutionalism in pragmatic terms, if a constitution is to have an independent settlement function in our polity-one that promotes the important ends of political stability, liberty, and prosperity-it cannot depend on judges deciding the same issues that are endlessly politically disputed. Moreover, judges seem a curious group to interpret the Constitution if consequences are key. The Supreme Court is a small and insulated group of legal experts, which lacks the institutional capacity or electoral accountability for evaluating policy consequences.7 We believe that originalism can be given a strong pragmatic justification by focusing on the process by which constitutional provisions are created. Provisions created through the strict procedures of constitutional lawmaking are likely to have good consequences. Sustaining these good consequences, however, depends on adhering to the Constitution's meaning when it was ratified. Justified in this manner, originalism allows judges to achieve good consequences through formal legal interpretation without having to make policy case by case. In a paper of this brevity, we cannot provide exhaustive support for our views. Instead, we are content to sketch the main elements of a pragmatic defense of originalism. Because we believe that such defenses of originalism have been neglected, we hope that this essay will help encourage a broader debate about the consequences of originalism and other interpretative methodologies. I. SUPERMAJORITY RULES AND DESIRABLE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Our pragmatic argument for originalism can be briefly summarized. First, entrenched laws that are desirable should take priority over ordinary legislation, because such entrenchments operate to establish a structure of government that preserves democratic decisionmaking, individual rights, and other beneficial goals. second, appropriate supermajority rules tend to produce desirable entrenchments. …" @default.
• W3125341036 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3125341036 creator A5082843677 @default.
• W3125341036 creator A5088644887 @default.
• W3125341036 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W3125341036 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W3125341036 title "A PRAGMATIC DEFENSE OF ORIGINALISM[dagger]" @default.
• W3125341036 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W3125341036 type Work @default.
• W3125341036 sameAs 3125341036 @default.
• W3125341036 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3125341036 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3125341036 hasAuthorship W3125341036A5082843677 @default.
• W3125341036 hasAuthorship W3125341036A5088644887 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C2776217807 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C2780292567 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C2780761950 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C111472728 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C126322002 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C138885662 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C144024400 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C17744445 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C199539241 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C2776154427 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C2776217807 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C2780292567 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C2780761950 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C2780876879 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C41895202 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C527412718 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C71924100 @default.
• W3125341036 hasConceptScore W3125341036C98184364 @default.
• W3125341036 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3125341036 hasLocation W31253410361 @default.
• W3125341036 hasOpenAccess W3125341036 @default.
• W3125341036 hasPrimaryLocation W31253410361 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W1777916732 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W1810072498 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W2103378341 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W2119162776 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W2460490089 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W2604286323 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W2612145725 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W2766884533 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W2900404598 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W300456673 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W3121406421 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W3123122764 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W3123391557 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W3126054833 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W3196833287 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W3213319406 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W321381592 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W1927982066 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W2602043035 @default.
• W3125341036 hasRelatedWork W3124283514 @default.
• W3125341036 hasVolume "101" @default.
• W3125341036 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3125341036 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3125341036 magId "3125341036" @default.
• W3125341036 workType "article" @default.