At 09:37 AM 7/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
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.
