Authors

Joel Alicea

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2010

Abstract

While the extent to which Congress ought to be involved in interpreting the Constitution has been the subject of scholarly debate in recent years, the question of how Congress should interpret the document has been overlooked. This paper examines the justifications underlying several schools of originalist thought to tease out what these schools have to say about congressional constitutional interpretation. When the major originalist theories are scrutinized, the logical conclusion is that Congress ought to be originalist when engaging in constitutional interpretation. The paper thus breaks new ground in pointing out this radical implication of originalist thought, but its novel exploration of congressional interpretive methods makes it highly relevant to nonoriginalist scholars as well.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.