Caleb Nelson's recent article, Originalism and Interpretive Conventions, 70
U. Chi. L. Rev. 519 (2003), has a valuable discussion of the founding
generation's notion of precedent (both judicial and non-judicial) "fixing"
or "liquidating" the meaning of a legal document, including the
constititution.
Ed Hartnett
Seton Hall
"Michael J.
Gerhardt" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc:
Sent by: Discussion Subject: Framers on Precedent
list for con law
professors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
v.ucla.edu>
07/02/03 08:36 AM
Please respond to
Discussion list for
con law professors
>I hope this is an appropriate question for our list-serve. I have been
>working for some time on a book on constitutional stare decisis for
>Oxford University Press. There is at least one matter on which I would
>appreciate guidance -- what the Framers -- or their generation -- said
>about precedent as a source of constitutional meaning or about how much
>respect the Court owed to its own constitutional decisions. I have begun
>researching the question and have been assisted along by the way by, among
>other things, Thomas Lee's fine article in the Vanderbilt Law Review on
>the subject. If people know of good places for me to look to get this
>information, I would appreciate hearing from them either in response to
>this email on the list-serve or by separate communication. Many thanks.
