Top Law Schools

Help, please! My notes on this are really vague, and I am locked out of the articles I find on google. This is some of what I have:

Formalism - the form of law and ability to connect the dots of a chain of legitimacy
Functionalism - practice and consequences of how law is interpreted and resolved. Let results speak for themselves.

This doesn't do it for me. Can someone help clarify?? I'll buy you a beer.

Come on....do your good deed for the day!!! Pretty please??

IzziesGal wrote:Come on....do your good deed for the day!!! Pretty please??

I'd look it up in Chemerinsky but it could be a violation of my L. Rev. writing packet and honor code.

Our ConLaw teacher described it this way:

Formalism is defined by the "formal" boundaries of the Constitution. The branches have whatever power they have been given by the Constitution- no more, no less.

Functionalism is kind of like adverse possession of powers. If a branch takes over a certain power unresisted for a long time, then it can be fairly assumed that the other branches and the people didn't have a problem with them doing so. Therefore, we look at how the branches have been "functioning" and what works practically, as opposed to merely what the Constitution specifically states.

This is simple and may not help you at all, but it might do you a little good.

Thanks, guys.

I haven't read Chemerinsky - is it something that I should definitely thumb through before my final? I've been using the E&Es and going over my notes.