Footnotes (157)



Using Comparative Constitutional Law to Resolve Domestic Federal Questions

Donald Earl Childress III

Pepperdine University School of Law

Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, p. 193, 2003

This paper examines whether comparative constitutional analysis, while rich in substance, is incongruous to the task of interpreting the United States Constitution. In short, comparative constitutional analysis presupposes that there is a public good and right political order to be achieved through judicial reason. Yet, the United States Constitution might presuppose, in contrast, that there is never a right political order to be achieved through the judiciary alone. In so arguing, this paper seeks to remedy a defect in the scholarly literature by illustrating that the current debate about comparative constitutional law is not a debate about comparativism as such. Rather, the debate is about the role of the judiciary within American democracy. In Part I, this paper briefly describes what comparative constitutional law has meant and currently means for American courts. Building upon Part I, Part II puts forward the claim that one's view of the appropriateness of comparative constitutional analysis is ultimately a reflection of the interpretive posture of the advocate - judge, lawyer, or scholar - regarding the role of the Supreme Court in American democracy. As this paper argues, comparative constitutional analysis may be appropriate as part of a view towards interpreting the Constitution that relies heavily on a common law conception of constitutionalism providing the Court with an expanded, quasi-legislative role. In contrast, a textualist school of constitutionalism might resist the utilization of comparative law in order to exercise judicial restraint so as not to "impose upon those people of the United States norms that those people themselves (through their democratic institutions) have not accepted." Finally, in Part III this paper urges restraint as to the uses of comparative constitutional law so as to ensure that the law is not usurped from its organic ground: the American people.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 29

Keywords: Constitutional law, international law, comparative law, comparative constitutionalism

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: September 16, 2005  

Suggested Citation

Childress III, Donald Earl, Using Comparative Constitutional Law to Resolve Domestic Federal Questions. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, p. 193, 2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=799267

Contact Information

Donald Earl Childress III (Contact Author)
Pepperdine University School of Law ( email )
24255 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90263
United States
310-506-4807 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://www.law.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/childress.html
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 820
Downloads: 128
Download Rank: 125,734
Footnotes:  157

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.313 seconds