Beschreibung Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation (Rhetoric, Law, and the Humanities) (English Edition). An analysis of the discrepancy between the ways Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued the Constitution should be interpreted versus how he actually interpreted the lawAntonin Scalia is considered one of the most controversial justices to have been on the United States Supreme Court. A vocal advocate of textualist interpretation, Justice Scalia argued that the Constitution means only what it says and that interpretations of the document should be confined strictly to the directives supplied therein. This narrow form of constitutional interpretation, which limits constitutional meaning to the written text of the Constitution, is known as textualism. Scalia v. Scalia:Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation examines Scalia’s discussions of textualism in his speeches, extrajudicial writings, and judicial opinions. Throughout his writings, Scalia argues textualism is the only acceptable form of constitutional interpretation. Yet Scalia does not clearly define his textualism, nor does he always rely upon textualism to the exclusion of other interpretive means. Scalia is seen as the standard bearer for textualism. But when textualism fails to support his ideological aims (as in cases that pertain to states’ rights or separation of powers), Scalia reverts to other forms of argumentation. Langford analyzes Scalia’s opinions in a clear area of law, the cruel and unusual punishment clause; a contested area of law, the free exercise and establishment cases; and a silent area of law, abortion. Through her analysis, Langford shows that Scalia uses rhetorical strategies beyond those of a textualist approach, concluding that Scalia is an opportunistic textualist and that textualism is as rhetorical as any other form of judicial interpretation.
Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in ~ Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation (Rhetoric, Law, and the Humanities) (English Edition) eBook: Langford, Catherine L .
: Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in ~ Scalia:Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation examines Scaliaâs discussions of textualism in his speeches, extrajudicial writings, and judicial opinions. Throughout his writings, Scalia argues textualism is the only acceptable form of constitutional interpretation. Yet Scalia does not clearly define his textualism, nor does he always rely upon textualism to the exclusion .
Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in ~ Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation (Rhetoric, Law, and the Humanities) - Kindle edition by Langford, Catherine L.. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation (Rhetoric, Law .
: Justice Scalia: Rhetoric and the Rule of Law ~ Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation (Rhetoric, Law, and the Humanities) Catherine L. Langford. 4.0 . First edition (March 6, 2019) Language: English; ISBN-10: 022660182X; ISBN-13: 978-0226601823; Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 0.8 inches Shipping Weight: 14.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies) Customer Reviews: Be the first to write a review .
List page42293 -Ebookee: Free Download eBooks Search Engine! ~ 2019-12-31 Scalia v. Scalia: Opportunistic Textualism in Constitutional Interpretation (Rhetoric, Law, and the Humanities) Ed 2; 2019-12-31 The Blind Man: A Phantasmography (Thinking from Elsewhere) 2019-12-31 A Handbook for Caring Science: Expanding the Paradigm; 2019-12-31 Delivering Culturally Competent Nursing Care: Working with Diverse and Vulnerable Populations, Second Edition: Working .
Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence: Text and Tradition: Rossum ~ It summarizes Justice Scalia's textualist approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation. In short, when deciding a given case, the plain meaning of the words contained in statutes or constitution provisions matters. Where the plain text is unclear, a jurist should consult the tradition behind the text to understand what the words mean to those who adopted it. The original .
The Dangers of Any Non-originalist Approach to the ~ Indeed, Vermeule rejects textualism altogether: âCommon-good constitutionalism is not legal positivism, meaning that it is not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will .
Originalism and Judge Amy Coney Barrett / Columnists ~ Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court, has characterized her approach to constitutional interpretation as a mixture of âoriginalismâ and âtextualism.â She .
Fourteen Ways To Interpret The Constitution / HuffPost ~ Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) upheld criminalizing LDS polygamy stating that the First Amendment allowed legislation prohibiting certain religious "actions," [such as "human sacrifices"], while protecting religious "opinions" and that, furthermore, English history only permitted single marriages with polygamy being "odious." "Professed doctrines of religious belief cannot be superior to the law of .
Hermeneutics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ~ There has been a highly developed practice of interpretation in Greek antiquity, aiming at diverse interpretanda like oracles, dreams, myths, philosophical and poetical works, but also laws and contracts. The beginning of ancient hermeneutics as a more systematic activity goes back to the exegesis of the Homeric epics. The most remarkable characteristic of ancient exegesis was
Statutory Interpretation in the Supreme Court of Canada ~ Statutory Interpretation in the Supreme Court of Canada Introduction. In her concurring judgment in 2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Quebéc (Régie des permis d'alcool) Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dubé complains that the Supreme Court of Canada currently lacks a coherent and consistent methodology of legal interpretation.Developing such a methodology, she suggests, is a judicial responsibility, for .
Legal formalism - Wikipedia ~ Legal formalism is both a descriptive theory and a normative theory of how judges should decide cases. In its descriptive sense, formalists believe that judges reach their decisions by applying uncontroversial principles to the facts.Although the numerous decided cases imply numerous principles, formalists believe that there is an underlying logic to these principles that is straightforward .
Intentionalism legal definition of intentionalism ~ See also Stephane Beaulac, Handbook on Statutory Interpretation: General Methodology, Canadian Charter, And International Law (Markham, ON: LexisNexis, 2008) (a detailed survey of SCC case law betrays blatant inconsistency of statutory interpretation methods: while reference to Driedger has remained constant, there has been an oscillation between textualism and intentionalism at 33-35).
Living Originalism: Balkin, Jack M.: 9780674061781: ~ Key constitutional phrases such as "equal protection of the laws," "due process of law," "freedom of speech," "privileges or immunities," and "cruel or unusual punishments" are seen as expressing vague or abstract "standards" or "principles." As such, their meaning quickly "runs out." To apply the vague standards or abstract principles or to concretize them in legal doctrines, we need to .
Tuesday, June 16, 2020 - AlbertMohler ~ And this reminds Christians as we think, not only about the Constitution and law, but as we think about the far higher responsibility to read and to understand the Bible as God's Word, this is why evangelicals come down to the historical grammatical method of interpretation. That's a form of textualism, but notice the word âhistoryâ there is important. We want to understand the Bible, the .
Strict Constructionism: Definition, Beliefs & Examples ~ Strict constructionism refers to the practice of applying a narrow, or 'strict', interpretation of the U.S. Constitution or other legal texts. Strict constructionists are judges who interpret .
Statutory interpretation - Wikipedia ~ Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation.Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute.Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning.
Living Constitution - Wikipedia ~ Living constitution Background. During the Progressive Era, many initiatives were promoted and fought for, but were prevented from coming to full fruition in either legislative bodies or judicial proceedings.One case in particular, Pollock v.Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., enraged early progressive activists hoping to achieve an income tax. This led progressives to the belief that the Constitution .
judicial activism / Definition, Types, Examples, & Facts ~ Judicial activism, an approach to the exercise of judicial review, or a description of a particular judicial decision, in which a judge is generally considered more willing to decide constitutional issues and to invalidate legislative or executive actions. Although debates over the proper role of the judiciary date to the founding of the American republic, the phrase judicial activism appears .
Chicago Unbound - Chicago Law Faculty Scholarship ~ Chicago Unbound Collections Follow. Chicago Unbound contains the scholarship of the University of Chicago Law School community and is a joint project of the DâAngelo Law Library and the Law School Communications Department.
American constitutional law : essays, cases, and ~ American constitutional law : essays, cases, and comparative notes [V. 1] / Donald P Kommers; John E Finn; Gary J Jacobsohn / download / BâOK. Download books for free. Find books
Legal realism - Wikipedia ~ Legal realism is a naturalistic approach to law.It is the view that jurisprudence should emulate the methods of natural science, i.e., rely on empirical evidence. Hypotheses must be tested against observations of the world.. Legal realists believe that legal science should only investigate law with the value-free methods of natural sciences, rather than through philosophical inquiries into the .
Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and ~ Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas .
Harvard Law Review ~ Chiafalo v. Washington. Leading Case. Article II Trump v. Vance. Leading Case. Constitutional Law New York State Rifle & Pistol Assân v. City of New York. Leading Case. Constitutional Law Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee. Leading Case. Constitutional Law Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. Leading .
Aristotleâs Rhetoric (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ~ Thus, for two millennia the interpretation of Aristotelian rhetoric has become a matter of the history of rhetoric, not of philosophy. In the most influential manuscripts and editions, Aristotle's Rhetoric was surrounded by rhetorical works and even written speeches of other Greek and Latin authors, and was seldom interpreted in the context of the whole Corpus Aristotelicum.