On Reading the Constitution

by Laurence H. Tribe, Michael C. Dorf

Our Constitution speaks in general terms of “liberty” and “property,” of the “privileges and immunities” of citizens, and of the “equal protection of the laws”―open-ended phrases that seem to invite readers to reflect in them their own visions and agendas. Yet, recognizing that the Constitution cannot be merely what its interpreters wish it to be, this volume’s authors draw on literary and mathematical analogies to explore how the fundamental charter of American government should be construed today.

Genres: Law, Politics, Legal

144 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

About the author

Laurence Henry Tribe es un académico estadounidense que es profesor de la Universidad Carl M. Loeb en la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard de la Universidad de Harvard. La beca de Tribe se centra en el derecho constitucional estadounidense. También trabaja con la firma Massey & Gail LLP en una variedad de asuntos.

Reviews

[Giovani Teodoro]

Interessante para identificar como a doutrina norte-americana produz os debates acerca da hermenêutica constitucional e da forma de decisão da Suprema Corte. São relevantes, também, as críticas dos autores ao método originalista do Justice Antonin Scalia, em especial pela viabilidade de enfraquecimento dos direitos individuais e da dificuldade de se identificar as tradições. Senti falta de uma maior explicitação das propostas hermenêuticas dos autores, mas vale a leitura.

[Rob Hotz]

Tribe’s living and breathing “constitution” is in need of a respirator.

[Jack Drahota]

Picked this one up from the Senate library. Justice Scalia and his disciples are exposed here for their pseudo-philosophical doctrine known as "originalism". As justice Brennan said about it, “it is little more than arrogance cloaked as humility”. Indeed, the irony of those who insist that the Constitution ought to be read and interpreted as it was in 1787, so as to avoid “legislating from the bench”, is that they read into and extrapolate their own values more so than the most liberal of judges have ever done.