原旨主义,复古还是新运动:“他说,她说”的法律

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Fordham Law Review Pub Date : 2013-11-14 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2354371
Tara L. Smith
{"title":"原旨主义,复古还是新运动:“他说,她说”的法律","authors":"Tara L. Smith","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2354371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that all forms of Originalism, new and old, ultimately worship the wrong God. While I share the Originalists’ desire for judicial fidelity to the actual, enduring law, analysis of their reasoning reveals that what Originalism honors is not the meaning of the law, but the original meaners. More exactly, Originalists tend to conflate the original meaning of a term with that term’s objective meaning. They confuse that which is objective with that which a particular group of people thought was objective – which is not the same thing. In so doing, the Originalist prescription for judicial review reduces law to a \"he said, she said\" dispute – a contest over whose say-so should carry the day that is not resolved by evidence and logic. This is ultimately as subjectivist as many of the theories that Originalists reject and it undermines the very ideal that they wish to defend: the objective Rule of Law.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Originalism, Vintage or Nouveau: 'He Said, She Said' Law\",\"authors\":\"Tara L. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2354371\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper argues that all forms of Originalism, new and old, ultimately worship the wrong God. While I share the Originalists’ desire for judicial fidelity to the actual, enduring law, analysis of their reasoning reveals that what Originalism honors is not the meaning of the law, but the original meaners. More exactly, Originalists tend to conflate the original meaning of a term with that term’s objective meaning. They confuse that which is objective with that which a particular group of people thought was objective – which is not the same thing. In so doing, the Originalist prescription for judicial review reduces law to a \\\"he said, she said\\\" dispute – a contest over whose say-so should carry the day that is not resolved by evidence and logic. This is ultimately as subjectivist as many of the theories that Originalists reject and it undermines the very ideal that they wish to defend: the objective Rule of Law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fordham Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fordham Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2354371\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2354371","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,所有形式的原旨主义,无论新旧,最终崇拜的都是错误的上帝。虽然我赞同原旨主义者对司法忠实于实际的、持久的法律的愿望,但对他们的推理的分析表明,原旨主义者所尊重的不是法律的意义,而是最初的意义。更确切地说,原创主义者倾向于将术语的原始含义与该术语的客观含义混为一谈。他们把客观的东西和一群人认为客观的东西混淆了——这不是一回事。在这样做的过程中,原旨主义对司法审查的规定将法律简化为“他说,她说”的争论——一场关于谁的说法应该占上风的争论,而这并没有证据和逻辑来解决。这最终和许多原旨主义者所拒绝的理论一样是主观主义的,它破坏了他们希望捍卫的理想:客观的法治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Originalism, Vintage or Nouveau: 'He Said, She Said' Law
This paper argues that all forms of Originalism, new and old, ultimately worship the wrong God. While I share the Originalists’ desire for judicial fidelity to the actual, enduring law, analysis of their reasoning reveals that what Originalism honors is not the meaning of the law, but the original meaners. More exactly, Originalists tend to conflate the original meaning of a term with that term’s objective meaning. They confuse that which is objective with that which a particular group of people thought was objective – which is not the same thing. In so doing, the Originalist prescription for judicial review reduces law to a "he said, she said" dispute – a contest over whose say-so should carry the day that is not resolved by evidence and logic. This is ultimately as subjectivist as many of the theories that Originalists reject and it undermines the very ideal that they wish to defend: the objective Rule of Law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.
期刊最新文献
Using a Hybrid Securities Test to Tackle the Problem of Pyramid Fraud Resurrecting Free Speech Managing the Misinformation Marketplace: The First Amendment and the Fight Against Fake News Airbnb in New York City: whose privacy rights are threatened by a Government Data grab? Free money, but not tax-free: a proposal for the tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1