The People's Constitution vs. The Lawyer's Constitution: Popular Constitutionalism and the Original Debate over Originalism
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
The Ontological Foundations of the Debate over Originalism
Because the participants in the debate over constitutional originalism generally understand the controversy to be over a matter of the objective truth of competing interpretations of the Constitution, they do not believe that their mission is to persuade the other side. When what is at stake is a matter of objective truth, subjective opinions are of less moment. This Article begins the long ove...
متن کاملThe Emergence and Evolution of Political Parties of the Constitution: The First and Second Periods
The evolution of studies of political parties of constitution: The first and second periods show that the evolution of parties indicates that researchers' attitude to political pheno-mena also coincide with the evolution of political realities has been transformed, and the consideration of ideologies in the analysis of the parties have replaced with religious perspectives and anti-authoritarian...
متن کاملNine Perspectives on Living Orignalism
AND VAGUE LANGUAGE? Today most conservative originalists agree with me that we are not bound by original expected applications, only by original meaning. But the way they cash out original meaning often leads them to model it fairly closely on original expected applications—which includes not only how specific cases would be decided, but also how people at the time of adoption would have articu...
متن کاملFace off Discourses in the Islamic Republic of Iran Constitution Council (Discourse of Jurist Islam versus the Liberal Islam)
The present study aimed to examine theposition of "Jurist Islam" discourses and "Liberal Islam"in the "Final Review of the Islamic Republic of Iran Constitution" in1979. And consider the conflict between the above-mentioned constitutionaldiscourses to gain a better understanding of these discourses and the constitution.To this aim, should find the point of the deba...
متن کاملCompeting Accounts of Interpretation and Practical Reasoning in the Debate over Originalism
This article explores two assumptions about constitutional law and the form of practical reasoning inherent in constitutional argument and decision that have shaped the debate over originalism. The first assumption—adopted by originalists—is that constitutional reasoning is a formalistic process. Originalism’s critics tacitly describe a very different and less formalistic model. The second assu...
متن کامل