Question on Approaches to Conlaw Interpretation
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Hi,
My Conlaw prof is very into approaches of the different justices (i.e. originalist, textualist, functionalist, interpretivist, naturalist, and who knows what else...)
I have no clue what these are, and Chemerinsky has a few pages or so classifying the approaches into originalist and non-originalist.
I have a strong feeling that there will be an essay on the exam regarding conlaw interpretation, and my approach to conlaw has been more to get the principles out of cases, and be able to apply them efficiently to a fact pattern. I did not really care which justice said what.
Ideally what I am looking for is some type of chart that will have all the approaches, their definitions, and examples of opinions that used them.
Alternatively, is there any supplement that has a good section on this. I've searched all the major ones and have not been able to find one other than the few pages in Chemerinsky which doesnt have enough detail.
My Conlaw prof is very into approaches of the different justices (i.e. originalist, textualist, functionalist, interpretivist, naturalist, and who knows what else...)
I have no clue what these are, and Chemerinsky has a few pages or so classifying the approaches into originalist and non-originalist.
I have a strong feeling that there will be an essay on the exam regarding conlaw interpretation, and my approach to conlaw has been more to get the principles out of cases, and be able to apply them efficiently to a fact pattern. I did not really care which justice said what.
Ideally what I am looking for is some type of chart that will have all the approaches, their definitions, and examples of opinions that used them.
Alternatively, is there any supplement that has a good section on this. I've searched all the major ones and have not been able to find one other than the few pages in Chemerinsky which doesnt have enough detail.