作为宪法解释理论的原创主义的挑战

Teise Pub Date : 2022-12-30 DOI:10.15388/teise.2022.125.6
Miranda Borusevičiūtė
{"title":"作为宪法解释理论的原创主义的挑战","authors":"Miranda Borusevičiūtė","doi":"10.15388/teise.2022.125.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes originalism, which is considered to be the opposing constitutional theory to “living” constitutionalism, and presents and evaluates the main arguments of originalism and its approach on how the constitution should be interpreted, including the shortcomings of this constitutional theory. In the author’s opinion, it is important to start developing constitutional theories that would be considered more suitable in the context of the European tradition of statutory law. The paper does not search for possibilities of using originalism to interpret the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, which is considered to be a fundamental error.","PeriodicalId":33051,"journal":{"name":"Teise","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Challenges of Originalism as a Theory of Constitutional Interpretation Today\",\"authors\":\"Miranda Borusevičiūtė\",\"doi\":\"10.15388/teise.2022.125.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper analyzes originalism, which is considered to be the opposing constitutional theory to “living” constitutionalism, and presents and evaluates the main arguments of originalism and its approach on how the constitution should be interpreted, including the shortcomings of this constitutional theory. In the author’s opinion, it is important to start developing constitutional theories that would be considered more suitable in the context of the European tradition of statutory law. The paper does not search for possibilities of using originalism to interpret the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, which is considered to be a fundamental error.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Teise\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Teise\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15388/teise.2022.125.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teise","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/teise.2022.125.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了与“活的”宪政相对立的宪法理论“原始主义”,提出并评价了原始主义的主要论点及其对宪法的解释方法,包括这种宪法理论的不足。作者认为,重要的是要开始发展宪法理论,这些理论将被认为更适合欧洲成文法传统。本文没有探讨使用原创主义来解释《立陶宛共和国宪法》的可能性,这被认为是一个根本错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Challenges of Originalism as a Theory of Constitutional Interpretation Today
This paper analyzes originalism, which is considered to be the opposing constitutional theory to “living” constitutionalism, and presents and evaluates the main arguments of originalism and its approach on how the constitution should be interpreted, including the shortcomings of this constitutional theory. In the author’s opinion, it is important to start developing constitutional theories that would be considered more suitable in the context of the European tradition of statutory law. The paper does not search for possibilities of using originalism to interpret the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, which is considered to be a fundamental error.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信