Wildy logo
(020) 7242 5778
enquiries@wildy.com

Wildy’s Book News

Book News cover photo

Vol 21 No 11 Nov/Dec 2016

Book of the Month

Cover of Criminal Injuries Compensation Claims

Criminal Injuries Compensation Claims

Price: £99.95

Pupillage & Student Offers

Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students

Read More ...


Secondhand & Out of Print

Browse Secondhand Online

Read More...


Revolution by Judiciary: The Structure of American Constitutional Law

Image not available lge

ISBN13: 9780674017153
ISBN: 0674017153
Published: June 2005
Publisher: Harvard University Press
Country of Publication: United States
Format: Hardcover
Price: £42.95



Despatched in 3 to 5 days.

Although constitutional law is supposed to be fixed and enduring, its central narrative in the twentieth century has been one of radical reinterpretation - Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore. What, if anything, justifies such radical reinterpretation? How does it work doctrinally? What, if anything, structures it or limits it? Jed Rubenfeld finds a pattern in American constitutional interpretation that answers these questions convincingly. He posits two different understandings of how constitutional rights would apply or not apply to particular legislation. One is that a right would be violated if certain laws were passed. The other is that a right would not be violated. He calls the former "Application Understandings" and the latter "No-Application Understandings." He finds that constitutional law has almost always adhered to all of the original Application Understandings, but where it has departed from history, as it did in the Brown decision, it has departed from No-Application Understandings. Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit racial segregation, so Rubenfeld argues that the Supreme Court had no problem reinterpreting it to prohibit it. It was a No-Application Understanding. This is a powerful argument that challenges current theories of constitutional interpretation from Bork to Dworkin. It rejects simplistic originalism, but restores historicity to constitutional theorizing.