Hollow Hopes and Exaggerated Fears: The Canon/Anticanon in Context

Harvard Law Review Forum, Vol. 125, No. 2, pp. 33-39, 2011

U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-2

8 Pages Posted: 14 Jan 2012

See all articles by Mark Graber

Mark Graber

University of Maryland - Francis King Carey School of Law

Date Written: December 1, 2011

Abstract

Students of American constitutionalism should add constitutional decisions made by elected officials to the constitutional canon and the constitutional anticanon. Neither the canonical nor the anticanonical constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court have produced the wonderful results or horrible evils sometimes attributed to them. In many cases, elected officials made contemporaneous constitutional decisions that had as much influence as the celebrated or condemned judicial rulings. More often than not, judicial rulings matter more as a result of changing the political dynamics than by directly changing public policy. Law students and others interested in constitutional change, for these reasons, need to explore the interactions between constitutional decisions inside and outside of courts, and not be exposed to a curriculum that consists of little more than good or bad judicial solos.

Keywords: Constitution, opinions, Supreme Court, judicial rulings

Suggested Citation

Graber, Mark, Hollow Hopes and Exaggerated Fears: The Canon/Anticanon in Context (December 1, 2011). Harvard Law Review Forum, Vol. 125, No. 2, pp. 33-39, 2011, U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-2, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1984638

Mark Graber (Contact Author)

University of Maryland - Francis King Carey School of Law ( email )

500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
35
Abstract Views
541
PlumX Metrics