The Paradox of Balancing Significant Interests
Stephen E. Gottlieb
Albany Law School
Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 45, No. 825, 1994
Addresses the changing constitutional discourse on the Court, argues that the justices have no choice but to balance rights and “interests” regardless of their verbal formulas, and explores the consequences of taking a principled approach to rights and interests.
Keywords: Balancing, Compelling government interests, Constitutional law, Decision theory, Discretion, Fundamental rights, Incrementalism, Intentions, Interpretation, Interpretive consistency, Jurisprudence, Positive rights, Rational choice, State Action, Strict scrutiny, Supreme CourtAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 14, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.500 seconds