Customer Reviews

Constitutional Interpretation (PB)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In Constitutional Interpretation (PB), Whittington makes a case for originalism. Unfortunately, by focusing so much on the American experience and making his arguments at such an abstract theoretical level, his arguments are less convincing. In the real world of judges, practical considerations and feasibility are important to determining a theory of interpretation. Moreover, some of Whittington's theoretical arguments can be easily dismissed. For example, he seems to argue that the text-based nature of the US constitution requires some form of originalism, but he ignores the fact that nearly every other country (except for the UK) has a written constitution, and none adopt an originalist perspective. Moreover, it's not clear that courts in those countries have been consistently less able to constrain the other branches of government to the text of the constitution (in many ways, the US constitution has proved elastic beyond belief). Overall, if you want a really convincing argument in favor of originalism, talk to Justice Scalia.