Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1989
Abstract
The methods of constitutional argument1 that may be denominated, historical, textual, doctrinal, structural, prudential and ethical, have not grown according to a plan. They have grown up in the United States because of our history and traditions – the sort of people we have become and are still becoming. To that extent, they are arbitrary and contingent. They are not the same for every culture. I would be surprised if they were very different for Canada because Canadians and Americans share so much of the same legal tradition. One can, however, easily imagine cultures around the world where legal arguments such as these are not decisive or even relevant. One can also imagine arguments that really have no resonance in our systems, yet are legitimate and persuasive in other systems. A religious argument from a text, for example the Koran, has decisive authority in the courts of Iran now but did not fifteen years ago and has never had in American or Canadian courts.
Disciplines
Constitutional Law | Law
Recommended Citation
Philip C. Bobbitt,
Methods of Constitutional Argument,
23
U. Brit. Colum. L. Rev.
449
(1989).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/4473