The fundamental thesis of Constitutional Law as Fiction is that
in writing the opinion that explains a judgment, a judge not only
analyzes and organizes precedent and makes and defends policy or
value judgments, but he or she also tells a story, much as a
historian does.
Like a history, this story has the appearance of simple truth,
but, in fact, of necessity, it is a "fiction" as well--not in the
sense of a lie or fairy tale, but in the sense of a constructed
meaning. Strangely enough, these fictions persuade those who read
them and those who write them, and without this persuasion, the law
would lose much of its authority. L. H. LaRue examines several
critical Supreme Court cases, including Everson v. Board of
Education and Marbury v. Madison, and specifically examines the
rhetorical techniques of Chief Justice John Marshall.
In analyzing the construction of meaning in the rhetoric of the
law, LaRue ultimately contends that judges must not abandon the
"fictions" in their judgments; they must strive to improve
them.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!