I have stated in numerous articles that I write for the practitioner, but this article, I must confess, is for the philosopher of law in each of us.
Lawyers and non-lawyers alike have been super-saturated with theories of how to interpret the Constitution. In very broad strokes, political conservatives profess interpretative philosophies that are restrictive, in many senses of the word. “Strict constructionists,” for example, look to the plain text and are highly suspicious of interpretations that are expansive or seek to look “underneath” the text. Those who espouse the “original intent” approach posit that we must glean the intent of the founders when interpreting a section and go no further than where that approach might take us (ostensibly, not that far).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
