Abstract

 


 



It's a Bird, it's a Plane, No, it's Super Precedent: A Response to Faber and Gerhardt


Randy E. Barnett


Georgetown University Law Center

March 15, 2012

Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 90, 2006
Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 12-048

Abstract:     
The normative case for originalism is based, in large measure, on the superiority of the enacted text over the opinions of members of the government whom it is supposed to govern and limit-including members of the Supreme Court. The author does not see how an originalist can accept that the Supreme Court could change the meaning of the text from what it meant as enacted and still remain an originalist. In other words, once it becomes appropriate for the Supreme Court to discard original meaning and the original meaning of the text is thereby reduced to a factor among many considerations by which the Constitution is "interpreted," the method being used is no longer originalism.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

Keywords: Originalism, Constitutional interpretation, Stare decisis, Judicial review

JEL Classification: K00, K1, K3

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 15, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Barnett, Randy E., It's a Bird, it's a Plane, No, it's Super Precedent: A Response to Faber and Gerhardt (March 15, 2012). Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 90, 2006; Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 12-048. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2023771

Contact Information

Randy E. Barnett (Contact Author)
Georgetown University Law Center ( email )
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
United States
202-662-9936 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://www.randybarnett.com
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 267
Downloads: 20

© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.312 seconds