The article discusses a conversation with Richard Sherwin about the philosophical implications of legal interpretations. Sherwin explores the challenge judges face when adapting laws to changing societal conditions, particularly how original meanings can shift over time. He questions whether we should strive for stability by adhering to 'original intent' or embrace a more dynamic interpretation of a 'living' constitution. The discourse emphasizes the relationship between expressive forms and meaning, suggesting that uncertainty may arise from the abundance of interpretations rather than a lack of clarity.
In law, judges often wrestle with interpretations as society evolves. This debate highlights how different people respond to uncertainty.
The tension between maintaining a text's original intent and adapting to changing conditions exemplifies the complexities within constitutional interpretation.
What if our uncertainty stems from the very excess of meaning, shaping and reshaping historical contexts to fit a 'living' constitution?
Expressive forms serve as a constraint on the overflow of meaning, balancing clarity and complexity in legal interpretations.
Collection
[
|
...
]