Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1648903
 
 

Footnotes (256)



 


 



The Four Pillars of Constitutional Doctrine


Suzanna Sherry


Vanderbilt University - Law School

July 26, 2010

Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 32, p. 969, 2011
Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 10-30

Abstract:     
Constitutional interpretation, and thus constitutional doctrine, is inevitably controversial. Judges, scholars, lawyers, politicians, and the American public all disagree among themselves, not only about the correct constitutional outcome but even about the right approach to constitutional interpretation. We are unlikely to reach consensus on whether we should read the Constitution as a living and evolving document or instead read it in accordance with a fixed original meaning, much less on whether it does or does not protect campaign contributions, reproductive rights, affirmative action policies, gun ownership, or any of the other contested issues that have recently come before the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, I believe that we can find an important degree of common ground by focusing on the essential elements of sound constitutional doctrine as an abstract matter. Even if we cannot identify standards to evaluate outcomes or approaches, we can at least specify the minimum requirements for sound doctrine. Thus we can come to agreement about how to evaluate the Supreme Court (and its Justices) at some basic level. In this Article, I identify the four necessary pillars underlying sound constitutional doctrine. By doing so, I hope to begin a conversation about the courts and the Constitution that, unlike most such conversations, does not end in a political impasse.

The Article proceeds as follows. Part I sketches out the four pillars of constitutional doctrine. Part II provides a practical illustration of these essential principles by using them to test the soundness of a recent little-noticed Supreme Court case that I believe violates all four principles. Part III broadens the focus to examine other recent Supreme Court cases, demonstrating the usefulness of my four pillars to critique judicial output independent of political valence.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 41

Keywords: Constitution, Supreme Court, Doctrine, Politics

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: July 26, 2010 ; Last revised: February 20, 2011

Suggested Citation

Sherry, Suzanna, The Four Pillars of Constitutional Doctrine (July 26, 2010). Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 32, p. 969, 2011; Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 10-30. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1648903

Contact Information

Suzanna Sherry (Contact Author)
Vanderbilt University - Law School ( email )
131 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203-1181
United States
615-322-0993 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 4,163
Downloads: 475
Download Rank: 33,873
Footnotes:  256

© 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 0.375 seconds