Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2035936
 
 

Footnotes (240)



 


 



Constitutional Value Judgments and Interpretive Theory Choice


Ian C. Bartrum


University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law

February 15, 2012

Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2013
UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series

Abstract:     
Philip Bobbitt’s remarkable work describing the ‘modalities’ of constitutional argument is an immense contribution to the study of constitutional law. He describes a typology of six forms of argument alive in our interpretive practice, and offers a limited account of how these modalities interact, and sometimes conflict, in actual constitutional decisions. One of the persistent puzzles Bobbitt’s description leaves open, however, is how we should account for the choice between conflicting modalities in cases where that choice is likely outcome-determinative. Because the modalities are ‘incommensurable’ — a term’s meaning in one modality may not be fully translatable into another — there is no internal way to justify the choice of one approach over another. Bobbitt ultimately concluded that such acts of ‘decision’ are the product of ‘judicial conscience’; which some individuals possess (or exercise) to a greater degree than others.

I have always felt that Bobbitt’s resolution is probably correct, but still unsatisfying. I think we can do a little more to explain the processes of interpretive theory choice, even if those choices ultimately remain idiosyncratic and individual. To that end, I look to another account of choices made between incommensurable theories — that Thomas Kuhn gave in his work on scientific paradigm changes. Kuhn argued that, while no universal algorithm defines a ‘correct’ decision to adopt a new scientific paradigm, there are broadly shared choice criteria or ‘values’ that scientists regularly refer to when justifying their decisions. It is, Kuhn suggested, the scientist’s willingness to discuss and explain these underlying value judgments that makes her approach ‘scientific.’

This paper attempts to apply some lessons from Kuhn’s work to constitutional practice, particularly the choices we must make between Bobbitt’s interpretive modalities in outcome determinative cases. I derive a list of four overlapping and sometimes competing ‘constitutional values’ — constraint, flexibility, representation, and identity — from texts in the constitutional canon. I look to the canon because it important that the values I identify are broadly shared, as that is what allows them to serve as a somewhat ‘objective’ set of choice criteria. That is, when we make an interpretive theory choice, we should justify it in terms of the purposes we widely believe the Constitution serves in our legal practice. I then speculate on the ways that underlying value judgments may have influenced interpretive theory choices in several Supreme Court opinions, and conclude that judges should be more transparent in acknowledging and defending these often obscure processes.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 46

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: April 8, 2012 ; Last revised: April 7, 2013

Suggested Citation

Bartrum, Ian C., Constitutional Value Judgments and Interpretive Theory Choice (February 15, 2012). Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2013; UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2035936

Contact Information

Ian C. Bartrum (Contact Author)
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law ( email )
4505 South Maryland Parkway
Box 451003
Las Vegas, NV 89154
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,699
Downloads: 200
Download Rank: 84,233
Footnotes:  240

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.766 seconds