{"title":"为巴尔金教授的原旨主义欢呼两声","authors":"S. Calabresi, L. Fine","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1294787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Yale law professor Jack Balkin has recently argued in three forthcoming law review articles that originalism and living constitutionalism are compatible contrary to the claims of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. This essay explores Balkin's claims, agrees with him to some extent, but suggests a number of subjects on which Balkin needs to say more. Balin's writing is powerful, but we argue his approach to constitutional interpretation is in tension with some of the core fundamental principles of constitutionalism itself.","PeriodicalId":47587,"journal":{"name":"Northwestern University Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"663-702"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two Cheers for Professor Balkin's Originalism\",\"authors\":\"S. Calabresi, L. Fine\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1294787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Yale law professor Jack Balkin has recently argued in three forthcoming law review articles that originalism and living constitutionalism are compatible contrary to the claims of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. This essay explores Balkin's claims, agrees with him to some extent, but suggests a number of subjects on which Balkin needs to say more. Balin's writing is powerful, but we argue his approach to constitutional interpretation is in tension with some of the core fundamental principles of constitutionalism itself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Northwestern University Law Review\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"663-702\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Northwestern University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1294787\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northwestern University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1294787","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Yale law professor Jack Balkin has recently argued in three forthcoming law review articles that originalism and living constitutionalism are compatible contrary to the claims of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. This essay explores Balkin's claims, agrees with him to some extent, but suggests a number of subjects on which Balkin needs to say more. Balin's writing is powerful, but we argue his approach to constitutional interpretation is in tension with some of the core fundamental principles of constitutionalism itself.
期刊介绍:
The Northwestern University Law Review is a student-operated journal that publishes four issues of high-quality, general legal scholarship each year. Student editors make the editorial and organizational decisions and select articles submitted by professors, judges, and practitioners, as well as student pieces.