Who Shall Interpret? The Quest for the Ultimate Constitutional Interpreter
- 1 January 1986
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in The Review of Politics
- Vol. 48 (3) , 401-423
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500039334
Abstract
The question of WHO is the ultimate constitutional interpreter poses one of the fundamental problems with which a coherent constitutional theory must come to grips. Any answer will be closely connected to other basic theoretical interrogatives, such as WHAT is the constitution and HOW should it be interpreted. Three principal theories compete here: Judicial supremacy, legislative supremacy, and departmentalism. This paper suggests a sort of analysis that transforms the question of WHO from one that yields a universally applicable response into a more complex set of queries about degrees of deference one institution owes another under varying circumstances. What emerges is a modified version of departmentalism.This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Judicial Misjudgments about the Lawmaking Process: The Legislative Veto CasePublic Administration Review, 1985
- The Attorney General's View of the Supreme Court: Toward a Jurisprudence of Original IntentionPublic Administration Review, 1985
- Is There a Politics of Interpretation?Critical Inquiry, 1982
- Objectivity and InterpretationStanford Law Review, 1982
- Congressional Power and Constitutional Rights: Reflections on Proposed "Human Life" LegislationVirginia Law Review, 1982
- Constitutional Interpretation: Text, Values, and ProcessesReviews in American History, 1981
- "The Constitution" in American Civil ReligionThe Supreme Court Review, 1979
- Congressional Power to Interpret Due Process and Equal ProtectionStanford Law Review, 1975
- Miranda and Title II: A Morganatic MarriageThe Supreme Court Review, 1969
- Judicial Review and the Political Question: A Functional AnalysisThe Yale Law Journal, 1966