Contemporary Perspectives On Constitutional Interpretation

Current controversies over abortion, affirmative action, school prayer, hate speech, and other issues have sparked considerable public debate about how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted. Such controversies, along with the changing composition of an often deeply divided Supreme Court, have led to a resurgence of interest in theories of constitutional interpretation. This anthology, edited by Susan J. Brison and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, presents some of the most exciting and influential contemporary work in this area. Written by ten of the country's most prominent legal scholars, the selections represent a wide variety of interpretive approaches, reflecting different political orientations from the far right to the far left. These theorists have drawn on a variety of other disciplines, including literature, economics, history, philosophy, and politics, and have in turn influenced these fields. The selections were chosen for their accessibility, originality, variety, and importance. Together they provide an excellent introduction to constitutional interpretation as well as a valuable collection for experienced scholars in the field.

Brings together ten of the nation’s finest and most provocative legal scholars to present their views on constitutional interpretation. All of these papers are very recent, and four were written especially for this volume.

Problems of constitutional interpretation have many faces, but much of the contemporary discussion has focused on what has come to be called "originalism." The core of originalism is the belief that fidelity to the original understanding of the Constitution should constrain contemporary judges. As originalist thinking has evolved, it has become clear that there is a family of originalist theories, some emphasizing the intent of the framers, while others focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. This idea has enjoyed a modern resurgence, in good part in reaction to the assumption of more sweeping power by the judiciary, operating in the name of constitutional interpretation. Those arguing for a "living Constitution" that keeps up with a changing world and changing values have resisted originalism. This difference in legal philosophy and jurisprudence has, since the 1970s, spilled over into party politics and the partisan wrangling over court appointments from appellate courts to the Supreme Court. In Constitutional Originalism, Robert W. Bennett and Lawrence B. Solum elucidate the two sides of this debate and mediate between them in order to separate differences that are real from those that are only apparent. In a thorough exploration of the range of contemporary views on originalism, the authors articulate and defend sharply contrasting positions. Solum brings learning from the philosophy of language to his argument in favor of originalism, and Bennett highlights interpretational problems in the dispute-resolution context, describing instances in which a living Constitution is a more feasible and productive position. The book explores those contrasting positions, to be sure, but also uncovers important points of agreement for the interpretational enterprise. This provocative and absorbing book ends with a bibliographic essay that points to landmark works in the field and helps lay readers and students orient themselves within the literature of the debate.

Current controversies over abortion, affirmative action, school prayer, hate speech, and other issues have sparked considerable public debate about how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted. Such controversies, along with the changing composition of an often deeply divided Supreme Court, have led to a resurgence of interest in theories of constitutional interpretation. This anthology, edited by Susan J. Brison and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, presents some of the most exciting and influential contemporary work in this area. Written by ten of the country's most prominent legal scholars, the selections represent a wide variety of interpretive approaches, reflecting different political orientations from the far right to the far left. These theorists have drawn on a variety of other disciplines, including literature, economics, history, philosophy, and politics, and have in turn influenced these fields. The selections were chosen for their accessibility, originality, variety, and importance. Together they provide an excellent introduction to constitutional interpretation as well as a valuable collection for experienced scholars in the field.

Words That Bind presents a careful and nuanced treatment of constitutional interpretation and judicial review. By bringing constitutional theory and contemporary political philosophy to bear on each other, John Arthur illuminates these topics as no other recent author has.

Constitutional interpretation -- The dilemmas of contemporary constitutional theory -- The authority of originalism and the nature of the written Constitution -- A defense of originalism and the written Constitution -- Popular sovereignty and originalism -- The nature and limits of originalist jurisprudence.

This book explores the relationship between populism or populist regimes and constitutional interpretation used in those regimes. The volume discusses the question of whether contemporary populist governments and movements have developed, or encouraged new and specific constitutional theories, doctrines and methods of interpretation, or whether their constitutional and other high courts continue to use the old, traditional interpretative tools in constitutional adjudication. The book is divided into four parts. Part I contains three chapters elaborating the theoretical basis for the discussion. Part II examines the topic from a comparative perspective, representing those European countries where populism is most prevalent, including Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Part III extends the focus to the United States, reflecting how American jurisprudence and academia have produced the most important contributions to the theory of constitutional interpretation, and how recent political developments in that country might challenge the traditional understanding of judicial review. This section also includes a general overview on Latin America, where there are also some populist governments and strong populist movements. Finally, the editors’ closing study analyses the outcomes of the comparative research, summarizing the conclusions of the book. Written by renowned national constitutional scholars, the book will be essential reading for students, academics and researchers working in Constitutional Law and Politics. Chapter 1 of this book is freely available as a downloadable Open Access PDF at http://www.taylorfrancis.com under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

Dworkin's important book is a collection of essays which discuss almost all of the great constitutional issues of the last two decades, including abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, homosexuality, pornography, and free speech. Dworkin offers a consistently liberal view of the Constitution and argues that fidelity to it and to law demands that judges make moral judgments. He proposes that we all interpret the abstract language of the Constitution by reference to moral principles about political decency and justice. His 'moral reading' therefore brings political morality into the heart of constitutional law. The various chapters of this book were first published separately; now drawn together they provide the reader with a rich, full-length treatment of Dworkin's general theory of law.