November 2008 Vol. 107 No. 2 THE REVIEW

When Should Original Meanings Matter?

Richard A. Primus

Constitutional theory lacks an account of when each of the familiar sources of authority—text, original meaning, precedent, and so on—should be given weight. The dominant tendency is to regard all sources as potentially applicable in every case. In contrast, this Article proposes that each source of authority is pertinent in some categories of cases but not in others, much as a physical tool is appropriate for some but not all kinds of household tasks. The Article then applies this approach to identify the categories of cases in which original meaning is, or is not, a valid factor in constitutional decisionmaking.

   //  VIEW PDF
& Other Current Events

Rethinking Reporter's Privilege

Forty years ago, in Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court made its first and only inquiry into...

Standing's Expected Value

This Article argues in favor of standing based on expected value of harm. Standing doctrine has been...

Counsel's Control over the Presentation of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing

The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's...

Law-Enforcement Officers and Self-Help Repossession: A State-Action Approach

Repossession of secured collateral is a fundamental component of the consumer credit industry. The...

Doing Affirmative Action

Sometime this year the Supreme Court will announce its holding in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List