In this commencement address, Justice Souter outlines an approach to constitutional interpretation. The reasons that constitutional judging is not a mere combination of fair reading and simple facts, he states, extend beyond the recognition that constitutions must have a great deal of general language in order to be useful over long stretches of time. One such reason is that the Constitution contains values that may well exist in tension with each other, not in harmony. Yet another reason is that the facts that determine whether a constitutional provision applies may be very different from facts like a person’s age or the amount of the grocery bill; constitutional facts may require judges to understand the meaning that the facts may bear before the judges can figure out what to make of them. Justice Souter states that we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, yet we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned: by relying on reason that respects the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for the living.
Harvard University’s 359th Commencement Address
- Volume 124
- Issue 2
- December 2010
Topics:
December 17, 2010
More from this Issue
-
Why (Ever) Define Markets?
Vol. 124 No. 2 Competition law is dominated by the market definition / market share paradigm, under which a relevant market is defined and pertinent market shares therein are examined in order to make inferences about market power. This Article advances the immodest claim that the market definition process is incoherent as a matter of basic economic principles and hence should be abandoned entirely. -
The Distortionary Effect of Evidence on Primary Behavior
Vol. 124 No. 2 In this Essay, we analyze how evidentiary concerns dominate actor’s behavior. Our findings offer an important refinement to the conventional wisdom in law and economics literature, which assumes that legal rules can always be fashioned to achieve socially optimal outcomes. We show that evidentiary motivations will often lead actors to engage in socially suboptimal behavior when doing so is likely to increase their chances of prevailing in court. -
Too Sovereign to Be Sued: Immunity of Central Banks in Times of Financial Crisis
Vol. 124 No. 2