Optimal Specificity in the Law of Separation of Powers: The Numerous Clauses Principle


Gary Lawson

Responding to John F. Manning, Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1939 (2011)

In this response to Professor John Manning's Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation, Professor Gary Lawson agrees with Manning's argument that there is no overarching constitutional principle of "optimal specificity." Lawson argues, however, that there are other overarching principles that are fairly derivable from the text, such as a principle of "decisional independence." Moreover, Lawson suggests a bigger potential problem with Manning's argument: when judges apply functionalist or formalist reasoning to decide cases, they may be engaging in a qualitatively different activity than Manning assumes, and his careful interpretative analysis may therefore be largely beside the point.

124 Harv. L. Rev. F. 42 (2011) | DOWNLOAD PDF

Online Forum

Responding to Rebecca Tushnet, Worth a Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 683 (2012)

More Than a Thousand Words in Response to Rebecca Tushnet

Christina Spiesel



Responding to Orin S. Kerr, An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 476 (2011)

An Original Take on Originalism

Christopher Slobogin


Responding to Dan M. Kahan, Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2011)

Democracy’s Distrust: Contested Values and the Decline of Expertise

Suzanna Sherry

“I Couldn’t See It Until I Believed It”: Some Notes on Motivated Reasoning in Constitutional Adjudication

Mark Tushnet


FORUM ARCHIVE


Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)