Lawrence Solum has a post up on his indispensable Legal Theory Blog about a debate over the use of the "underlying principles" behind various constitutional provisions in constitutional interpretation. Solum's analysis, which is actually a response to a scholarly article critiquing Randy Barnett's criticisms of Scalia's originalism (it's clearer when you read the piece), provides much worth reading for beginners in the area of legal theory. I'm not sure I agree with Solum's conclusion that "there is a difference between the use of underlying principles to resolve ambiguity or vagueness and the use ofunderlying principles as a substitute for the constitutional text," but the post and the articles it cites make for very interesting reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment