Optimal Specificity in the Law of Separation of Powers: The Numerous Clauses Principle


Gary Lawson

Responding to John F. Manning, Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1939 (2011)

In this response to Professor John Manning's Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation, Professor Gary Lawson agrees with Manning's argument that there is no overarching constitutional principle of "optimal specificity." Lawson argues, however, that there are other overarching principles that are fairly derivable from the text, such as a principle of "decisional independence." Moreover, Lawson suggests a bigger potential problem with Manning's argument: when judges apply functionalist or formalist reasoning to decide cases, they may be engaging in a qualitatively different activity than Manning assumes, and his careful interpretative analysis may therefore be largely beside the point.

124 Harv. L. Rev. F. 42 (2011) | DOWNLOAD PDF

Online Forum

Responding to Philip Alston, Does the Past Matter? On the Origins of Human Rights, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 2043 (2013)

Human Rights and History

Jenny S. Martinez



Responding to Neal Kumar Katyal, Stochastic Constraint, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 990 (2013)

A Reply to Professor Katyal

Jack Goldsmith


Responding to David A. Strauss, Not Unwritten, After All?, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1532 (2013)

American Constitutionalism — Written, Unwritten, and Living

Akhil Reed Amar


Reaction

Judicial Review of Targeted Killings

Jameel Jaffer


Reaction

Planning Responses and Defining Attacks in Cyberspace

Evan F. Kohlmann and Rodrigo Bijou



Reaction

Cyberdeterrence

Robert F. Turner


Reaction

Presidential Combat Against Climate Change

Richard J. Lazarus





Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)