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

Writing Competition Panel Audio Recording

On Tuesday, April 4, members of the Michigan Law Review discussed the 2012 writing competition and the...

Agency and Equity: Why Do We Blame Clients for Their Lawyers' Mistakes?

If you were to ask a child whether it would be fair to execute a prisoner because his lawyer had made...

How United States v. Jones Can Restore Our Faith in the Fourth Amendment

United States v. Jones, issued in January of this year, is a landmark case that has the potential to restore...

Who's Bringing the Children?: Expanding the Family Exemption for Child Smuggling Offenses

Under immigration law, an alien smuggling offense takes place when one knowingly encourages, induces,...

How the Gun-Free School Zones Act Saved the Individual Mandate

  For all the drama surrounding the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual mandate provision...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List