株式会社極東書店トップ ＞ 商品一覧 ＞ Worse Than Nothing : The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism.
商品詳細
Worse Than Nothing : The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism. E.Chemerinsky著 原意主義の危険な誤謬
・ISBN 978-0-300-25990-2 hard US$ 28.00
￥6,560.- (税込) ※（※）価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
お気に入り
★★★
| 著者・編者 | Chemerinsky, Erwin, |
|---|---|
| 出版社 | (Yale U. Pr., US) |
| 出版年月 | 2022.11 |
| ページ数 | 264 pp. |
| 言語 | ENG |
| ニュース番号 | ＜686-588＞ |
解説
Why originalism is a flawed, incoherent, and dangerously ideological method of constitutional interpretation
"Chemerinsky . . . offers a concise, point-by-point refutation of the theory [of originalism]. He argues that it cannot deliver what it promises-and if it could, no one would want what it is selling."-David Cole, New York Review of Books
Originalism, the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted, was once the fringe theory of a few extremely conservative legal scholars but is now a well-accepted mode of constitutional interpretation. Three of the Supreme Court's nine justices explicitly embrace the originalist approach, as do increasing numbers of judges in the lower courts.
Noted legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky gives a comprehensive analysis of the problems that make originalism unworkable as a method of constitutional interpretation. He argues that the framers themselves never intended constitutional interpretation to be inflexible and shows how it is often impossible to know what the "original intent" of any particular provision was. Perhaps worst of all, though its supporters tout it as a politically neutral and objective method, originalist interpretation tends to disappear when its results fail to conform to modern conservative ideology.
"Chemerinsky . . . offers a concise, point-by-point refutation of the theory [of originalism]. He argues that it cannot deliver what it promises-and if it could, no one would want what it is selling."-David Cole, New York Review of Books
Originalism, the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted, was once the fringe theory of a few extremely conservative legal scholars but is now a well-accepted mode of constitutional interpretation. Three of the Supreme Court's nine justices explicitly embrace the originalist approach, as do increasing numbers of judges in the lower courts.
Noted legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky gives a comprehensive analysis of the problems that make originalism unworkable as a method of constitutional interpretation. He argues that the framers themselves never intended constitutional interpretation to be inflexible and shows how it is often impossible to know what the "original intent" of any particular provision was. Perhaps worst of all, though its supporters tout it as a politically neutral and objective method, originalist interpretation tends to disappear when its results fail to conform to modern conservative ideology.