Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1235843
 
 

Footnotes (121)



 


 



Missouri v. Holland and Historical Textualism


Michael D. Ramsey


University of San Diego School of Law

August, 18 2008

Missouri Law Review, 2008
San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 08-068

Abstract:     
A longstanding debate, recently reinvigorated, is whether the U.S. Constitution imposes subject matter limitations on federal treatymaking akin to the limits it places, through Article I, Section 8, on federal legislation. That debate was supposedly settled in favor of substantively unlimited treatymaking power by the U.S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland (1920), but leading "originalist" accounts contend that the Constitution's original meaning supports a contrary result.

This essay defends Holland's conclusion against its originalist detractors, not so much as a matter of history but as a matter of methodology. It outlines and applies an approach it calls "historical textualism" as a way to determine the Constitution's original meaning. In brief, historical textualism focuses on the specific words of the Constitution's text as they were situated and understood in the context in which they were written. Among other things, historical textualism discounts structural or "framers' intent" arguments not tied to the meaning of particular phrases and abstract textual arguments not tied to understandings of particular phrases reflected in the historical record. Although receptive to arguments based on drafting, ratification and post-ratification understandings, it is most interested in how relevant phrases were used and understood prior to the Constitutional Convention or in contexts not directly implicating the particular controversy at issue.

Applying this idea of historical textualism, this essay finds that the Constitution's original meaning finds fully supports Holland's conclusion that the treatymaking power is not substantively limited. Its contrast with other originalist analyses finding subject matter limits on federal treatymaking underscores the differences between historical textualism other approaches for determining historical meaning.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 38

Keywords: originalism, textualism, treaty power, treatymaking

JEL Classification: K00, K10

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 20, 2008 ; Last revised: October 11, 2010

Suggested Citation

Ramsey, Michael D., Missouri v. Holland and Historical Textualism (August, 18 2008). Missouri Law Review, 2008; San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 08-068. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1235843

Contact Information

Michael D. Ramsey (Contact Author)
University of San Diego School of Law ( email )
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110-2492
United States
619-260-4145 (Phone)
619-260-2218 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 690
Downloads: 109
Download Rank: 142,321
Footnotes:  121

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.266 seconds