{"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}
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.
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.