Strictly speaking, discovery is about producing evidence. In this case, the "evidence" might be some secret legislation never reported (which of course doesn't exist). The court treated it as a demand to produce legal arguments rather than evidence as such. This illustrates how, even though in the constitutional system all law is a kind of fact, and as such a matter of evidence, the courts have been progressively treating facts as issues of law, and court precedents as "evidence of the law". You will notice how the court opinion dances around historical evidence questions and rejects a textualist approach to construction. This why I have argued that binding /stare decisis/ is in fundamental conflict with (constitutional) law. http://www.constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm .
Jacob Roginsky wrote: > Did the case go as far as discovery? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
