Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Jurisprudence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence

The Modalities Of Constitutional Argument: A Primer, Ian C. Bartrum Jan 2012

The Modalities Of Constitutional Argument: A Primer, Ian C. Bartrum

Ian C Bartrum

This piece is a contribution to Linda Edwards upcoming book Readings In Persuasion: Briefs That Changed the World (forthcoming Wolters Kluwer). In it I offer a short primer on the modalities of constitutional argument, as Philip Bobbitt has described them. As someone who teaches Constitutional Law with the primary goal of educating future practitioners, I have always brought Bobbitt’s very practical (while also very theoretical) work into my classroom discussions. I have regularly used the first chapter of Bobbitt’s Constitutional Interpretation as introductory text on the subject, but I have sometimes found the reading to be too long and/or theoretical …


Constitutional Value Judgments And Interpretive Theory Choice, Ian C. Bartrum Jan 2012

Constitutional Value Judgments And Interpretive Theory Choice, Ian C. Bartrum

Ian C Bartrum

Philip Bobbitt’s remarkable work describing the ‘modalities’ of constitutional argument is an immense contribution to the study of constitutional law. He describes a typology of six forms of argument alive in our interpretive practice, and offers a limited account of how these modalities interact, and sometimes conflict, in actual constitutional decisions. One of the persistent puzzles Bobbitt’s description leaves open, however, is how we should account for the choice between conflicting modalities in cases where that choice is likely outcome-determinative. Because the modalities are ‘incommensurable’—a term’s meaning in one modality may not be fully translatable into another—there is no internal …


Constructing The Constitutional Canon: The Metonymic Evolution Of Federalist 10, Ian C. Bartrum Jan 2010

Constructing The Constitutional Canon: The Metonymic Evolution Of Federalist 10, Ian C. Bartrum

Ian C Bartrum

This paper is part of larger symposium convened for the 2010 AALS annual meeting. In it I adapt some of my earlier constitutional theoretical work to engage the topic of that symposium: the so-called “interpretation/construction distinction”. I make two related criticisms of the distinction: (1) it relies on a flawed conception of linguistic meaning, and (2) while these flaws may be harmless in the “easy” cases of interpretation, they are much more problematic in the difficult cases of most concern. Thus, I doubt the ultimate utility of the distinction as part of a “true and correct” model of constitutional theory. …


The Constitutional Canon As Argumentative Metonymy, Ian C. Bartrum Jan 2010

The Constitutional Canon As Argumentative Metonymy, Ian C. Bartrum

Ian C Bartrum

This article builds on Philip Bobbitt's Wittgensteinian insights into constitutional argument and law. I examine the way that we interact with canonical texts as we construct arguments in the forms that Bobbitt has described. I contend that these texts serve as metonyms for larger sets of associated principles and values, and that their invocation usually is not meant to point to the literal meaning of the text itself. This conception helps explain how a canonical text's meaning in constitutional argument can evolve over time, and hopefully offers the creative practitioner some insight into the kinds of arguments that might accomplish …


Notas Para Una Historia Procesal De La Casación En México, Alejandro G. Escobedo Rojas, Juan Pablo Salazar Andreu Jan 2010

Notas Para Una Historia Procesal De La Casación En México, Alejandro G. Escobedo Rojas, Juan Pablo Salazar Andreu

Alejandro G Escobedo Rojas

No abstract provided.


Gunneflo - Demokrati Och Lagprövning: Om Rättfärdigandet Av En Positiv Respektive Negativ Inställning Till Lagprövning [Democracy And Judicial Review: On The Justicfication Of A Positive And A Negative Attitude To Judicial Review In A Democracy], Markus Gunneflo Dec 2007

Gunneflo - Demokrati Och Lagprövning: Om Rättfärdigandet Av En Positiv Respektive Negativ Inställning Till Lagprövning [Democracy And Judicial Review: On The Justicfication Of A Positive And A Negative Attitude To Judicial Review In A Democracy], Markus Gunneflo

Markus Gunneflo

This article focuses on the justification of a positive and a negative attitude respectively towards judicial review in a democracy. The analysis is performed by analyzing texts by four American theorists theorists with different opinions on the subject: Robert Dahl, Jeremy Waldron, Erwin Chemerinsky and Ronald Dworkin. The study shows that there are significant disagreements concerning democratic values between those who take a positive and those who take a negative attitude to judicial review inter alia on the understanding of democracy in terms of process or substance, rule by the broad mass of the people or rule by an elite, …


Situating The Core And Structure Of Experience In Constitutional Interpretation: Judicial Reasoning Under The Indian Constitution, Shubhankar Dam Dec 2006

Situating The Core And Structure Of Experience In Constitutional Interpretation: Judicial Reasoning Under The Indian Constitution, Shubhankar Dam

Shubhankar Dam

This article is about texts: texts of legal provisions and texts of judgments. How much does the text of a legal provision tell us about its meaning? How much does a judgment tell us about the reasons for any given meaning of the text? Rather than in the abstract, the article unfolds both these questions in the context of the Indian Constitution. More specifically, it unfolds the questions in the context of an issue of great constitutional importance the Indian Supreme Court was confronted with in B. R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another. Can a person convicted …