FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W750834673> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W750834673 startingPage "1245" @default.
• W750834673 abstract "INTRODUCTIONOriginalism's proponents (and here I refer to those skyscraper who consider themselves bound by expected application1) articulate three important virtues of their chosen interpretive method: (1) originalism provides legitimacy to judicial review that would otherwise be lacking;2 (2) originalism constrains judges' discretion in choosing among possible interpretations of the Constitution's text;3 and (3) originalism provides stability to the Constitution's meaning.4 In The Living Constitution, David Strauss's central thesis seems to be that the institution of judicial review itself - particularly the path dependency of the common-law tradition - provides all of those virtues even when judges are not bound by the Framers' understandings.5 Indeed, Professor Strauss makes the stronger claim that law better captures the virtues of legitimacy, constraint, and stability when it is not bound to original meaning than when it is.6In making his case, however, Professor Strauss paints too simplistic a picture of modern judicial review, eliding a second and crucially important common-law-like feature of judicially constructed rules: their frequent susceptibility to legislative override.7 Today's judiciary does not announce a rule and then enforce it dictatorially at all times and in all cases, nor does it announce a rule and then enforce it monolithically until compelled to make revisions through trial-and-error elaboration. Instead, today's judges announce broad norms and then craftspecific rules for enforcement of those norms - rules that Henry Monaghan long ago termed the constitutional common law.8 Importantly, most of these enforcement rules either allow for legislative overrides or are themselves subject to such override.The presence and operation of the common law is important to Professor Strauss's theory, especially to his claim that common-law constitutionalism can beat originalism at its own game - that it can better capture the virtues of legitimacy, constraint, and stability that originalists seek. The problem is that the legitimacy, constraint, and stability of common-law constitutionalism do not come from Burkean notions of tradition and precedent; they come from the common law and its openness to political suasion. But when it comes to judicial review, political suasion is a source of virtue that originalists want to reject. The disagreement between Professor Strauss and originalists, then, ought to be fought at square one: whether changing social norms and political preferences are a justifiable reason to change operations (absent a formal amendment). In my view, Professor Strauss cannot win on the originalists' turf; he ought to attack the originalists' foundational view that courts are institutionally antidemocratic and therefore ought not to do politics.The paper proceeds as follows. Part I describes the common law and its interactions with common-law constitutionalism. Part II uses the fight over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its so-called individual mandate as a case study to flesh out the core differences between common-law constitutionalism and common law. Part III argues that a viable justification for a living constitution needs to embrace and defend the courts' essentially political nature, confronting head-on the (skyscraper) originalists' sense that courts should never do politics.I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAWIn The Living Constitution, Professor Strauss portrays elaboration in the courts as a cloistered, voyeuristic, and slow process: A court announces a rule in the course of deciding a case, sees how that rule works in the world beyond its doors, and then makes adjustments slowly and carefully through case-by-case elaboration and with due respect for precedent. …" @default.
• W750834673 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W750834673 creator A5004088632 @default.
• W750834673 date "2012-07-01" @default.
• W750834673 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W750834673 title "Common-Law Constitutionalism, the Constitutional Common Law, and the Validity of the Individual Mandate" @default.
• W750834673 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W750834673 type Work @default.
• W750834673 sameAs 750834673 @default.
• W750834673 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W750834673 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W750834673 hasAuthorship W750834673A5004088632 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C171460291 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C2776217807 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C2780292567 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C46295352 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C48764862 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C70999106 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W750834673 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C111472728 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C138885662 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C144024400 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C170706310 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C171460291 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C17744445 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C18650270 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C199539241 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C2776154427 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C2776217807 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C2780292567 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C2780876879 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C46295352 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C48764862 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C555826173 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C70999106 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C83009810 @default.
• W750834673 hasConceptScore W750834673C94625758 @default.
• W750834673 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W750834673 hasLocation W7508346731 @default.
• W750834673 hasOpenAccess W750834673 @default.
• W750834673 hasPrimaryLocation W7508346731 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W101276832 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W1517496363 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W1608613040 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W1879947243 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W1963997144 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W1989387975 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W2010637690 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W210173211 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W2223836920 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W2734940661 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W275122864 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W2945955411 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W3121186209 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W3121873007 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W3123838345 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W3124073825 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W3124705860 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W3189086814 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W82914394 @default.
• W750834673 hasRelatedWork W90437345 @default.
• W750834673 hasVolume "92" @default.
• W750834673 isParatext "false" @default.
• W750834673 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W750834673 magId "750834673" @default.
• W750834673 workType "article" @default.