Law Commons^™

Minimalism: An Implication For American Judicial Review Of Legislation In Deciding Over Rights?, Luz Helena Orozco Y Villa

Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers

The diverse theories of constitutional interpretation in the United States share one strong common purpose: to constrain the adjudicator. Whether is text, tradition, structure or democracy, the prevailing fear behind these reasons is the inescapable empowerment of the “least dangerous branch” that comes with judicial review. This anxiety can be explained through the analysis of the systemic and contextual factors in American constitutionalism. Furthermore, because of the constitutional structure of the United States, there is a permanent tension in judicial activity between certainty and legitimacy. Therefore, I defend a minimalistic approach for judicial review of legislation, particularly in cases dealing …

Why Paretians Can’T Prescribe: Preferences, Principles, And Imperatives In Law And Policy, Robert C. Hockett

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent years have witnessed two linked revivals in the legal academy. The first is renewed interest in articulating a normative “master principle” by which legal rules might be evaluated. The second is renewed interest in the prospect that a variant of Benthamite “utility” might serve as the requisite touchstone. One influential such variant now in circulation is what the Article calls “Paretian welfarism.”

This Article rejects Paretian welfarism and advocates an alternative it calls “fair welfare.” It does so because Paretian welfarism is inconsistent with ethical, social, and legal prescription, while fair welfare is what we have been groping for …

Original Sin And Judicial Independence: Providing Accountability For Justices, Paul D. Carrington, Roger C. Cramton

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.