Iredell's strict constructionism

[Gerber, Scott]

There was a typo in the subject line.  I've fixed it.
Scott
 
*****************************
Scott Douglas Gerber
(on leave during 2009-10 at Brown University's Political Theory Project)
Professor of Law
Ohio Northern University
Ada, OH 45810
419-772-2219
http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty_staff/faculty_profiles/scottgerber.html

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Gerber, Scott
Sent: Tue 7/13/2010 9:29 AM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Iredell's strict construtionism



Most constitutional law casebooks include the famous exchange about constitutional interpretation between Samuel Chase and James Iredell in Calder v. Bull.  Iredell expressed the same commitment to strict constructionism a decade earlier in his widely cited letter to Richard Dobbs Spaight in August 1787.  Iredell insisted that the Constitution then being written in Philadelphia would not be "a mere imaginary thing about which ten thousand different opinions may be formed, but a written document to which all may have recourse, and to which, therefore, the judges cannot witfully blind themselves."

I mention this only because someone brought it to my attention, I find it interesting, and it demonstrates once again that there is much to learn about Supreme Court justices from what they have said or written before ascending to the bench, their frequent claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Best wishes,
Scott

*****************************
Scott Douglas Gerber
(on leave during 2009-10 at Brown University's Political Theory Project)
Professor of Law
Ohio Northern University
Ada, OH 45810
419-772-2219
http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty_staff/faculty_profiles/scottgerber.html


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.