Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1105865
 
 

Citations (6)



 
 

Footnotes (206)



 


 



When Should Original Meanings Matter?


Richard Primus


University of Michigan Law School


U of Michigan Public Law Working Paper No. 94
Michigan Law Review, 2008

Abstract:     
Constitutional theory lacks an account of when each of the familiar methods of interpretation - textualism, originalism, stare decisis, and so on - should be used. The dominant tendency is to regard all methods as potentially applicable in every case. In contrast, this Article proposes that each method should be understood as applicable 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 attention to original meaning is, or is not, a valid factor in constitutional decisionmaking.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 58

Keywords: Originalism, textualism, constitutional decisionmaking

JEL Classification: K19

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 17, 2008 ; Last revised: October 7, 2008

Suggested Citation

Primus, Richard, When Should Original Meanings Matter?. U of Michigan Public Law Working Paper No. 94; Michigan Law Review, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1105865

Contact Information

Richard Primus (Contact Author)
University of Michigan Law School ( email )
625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States
734-647-5543 (Phone)
734-764-8309 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,167
Downloads: 201
Download Rank: 83,768
Citations:  6
Footnotes:  206

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.328 seconds