Originalism is an enormously popular—and equally criticized—theory of constitutional interpretation. As Elena Kagan stated at her confirmation hearing, "We are all originalists." Scores of articles have been written on whether the Court should use originalism, and some have examined how the Court employed originalism in particular cases, but no one has studied the overall practice of originalism.
The primary point of this book is an examination of the degree to which originalism influences the Court's decisions. Frank B. Cross tests this by examining whether originalism appears to constrain the ideological preferences of the justices, which are a demonstrable predictor of their decisions. Ultimately, he finds that however theoretically appealing originalism may seem, the changed circumstances over time and lack of reliable evidence means that its use is indeterminate and meaningless. Originalism can be selectively deployed or manipulated to support and legitimize any decision desired by a justice.
Betaal eenvoudig met kaart, Klarna, Apple Pay of Google Pay. Niet tevreden? Je hebt altijd 14 dagen bedenktijd. Lees meer in onze voorwaarden. Heb je vragen, mail ons dan via hello@memmo.org.
Memmo maakt studeren makkelijker – waar je ook bent ter wereld. Wij brengen je cursusboeken en slimme studietools samen op één plek: samenvattingen, quizzen, podcasts en flashcards. En Ted, je studievriend die antwoord geeft op alles wat je je afvraagt. Meer dan 50.000 studenten studeren hier al – gebouwd om je sneller te laten leren en minder stress te geven.