Originalism and the good constitution /

"Originalism holds that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to its meaning at the time it was enacted. In their innovative defense of originalism, John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport maintain that the text of the Constitution should be adhered to by the Supreme Court because i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: McGinnis, John O., 1957-
Other Authors: Rappaport, Michael B., 1960-
Format: Book
Language:English
Published: Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2013
Subjects:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a2200000 i 4500
001 828724586
003 OCoLC
005 20131021000000.0
008 130225s2013 mau b 001 0 eng
010 |a 2013007994 
020 |a 9780674725072 
020 |a 0674725077 
035 |a (SKY)254657454 
040 |a DLC  |b eng  |c DLC  |e rda  |d DLC  |d SKYRV 
042 |a pcc 
043 |a n-us--- 
049 |a VLA 
050 0 0 |a KF4552  |b .M34 2013 
100 1 |a McGinnis, John O.,  |d 1957- 
245 1 0 |a Originalism and the good constitution /  |c John O. McGinnis, Michael B. Rappaport 
260 |a Cambridge, Massachusetts :  |b Harvard University Press,  |c 2013 
300 |a 298 p. ;  |c 25 cm 
504 |a Includes bibliographical references and index 
505 0 |a Originalism : Its Discontents and the Supermajoritarian Solution -- The Nature of the Argument -- The Supermajoritarian Theory of Constitutionalism -- The Compliance of the US Constitution with Desirable Supermajority Rules -- The Continuing Desirability of an Old Supermajoritarian Constitution -- Supermajoritarian Failure, Including the Exclusion of African Americans and Women -- Original Methods Originalism -- Original Methods versus Constitutional Construction -- Precedent, Originalism, and the Constitution -- The Normative Theory of Precedent -- Imagining an Originalist Future 
520 |a "Originalism holds that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to its meaning at the time it was enacted. In their innovative defense of originalism, John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport maintain that the text of the Constitution should be adhered to by the Supreme Court because it was enacted by supermajorities -- both its original enactment under Article VII and subsequent Amendments under Article V. A text approved by supermajorities has special value in a democracy because it has unusually wide support and thus tends to maximize the welfare of the greatest number. The authors recognize and respond to many possible objections. Does originalism perpetuate the dead hand of the past? How can following the original meaning be justified, given that African Americans and women were excluded from the enactment of the Constitution in 1787 and many of its subsequent Amendments? What is originalism's place in interpretation of the Constitution, when after two hundred years there is so much non-originalist precedent? A fascinating counterfactual they pose is this: had the Supreme Court not interpreted the Constitution so freely, perhaps the nation would have resorted to the Article V amendment process more often and with greater effect. Their book will be an important contribution to the literature on originalism, which is now the most prominent theory of constitutional interpretation."--From the dust-jacket front flap 
650 0 |a Constitutional law  |z United States 
650 0 |a Constitutional law  |x Philosophy 
650 0 |a Origin (Philosophy) 
650 0 |a Judicial review  |z United States 
700 1 |a Rappaport, Michael B.,  |d 1960- 
907 |a .b2202323 
998 |a secnd 
999 |c 104502 
852 |a Law Library  |b Second Floor  |h KF4552 .M34 2013  |p 33940004249833