Behind the Mask of Method: Political Orientation and Constitutional Interpretive Preferences

Debate about how to best interpret the Constitution often revolves around interpretive methodologies (e.g., originalism or expansive interpretation). This article examines whether individuals' political orientation influences the methodologies they prefer to use to interpret the Constitution. W...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Law and human behavior 2008-12, Vol.32 (6), p.502-510
Main Authors: Furgeson, Joshua R, Babcock, Linda, Shane, Peter M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attorneys
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Clerical personnel
College Students
Community and Environmental Psychology
Conservatism
Constitution and Bylaws
Constitutional law
Constitutions
Criminology and Criminal Justice
Decision Making
Federal law
Female
Government
Human
Humans
Judges
Judges & magistrates
Judgment
Law
Law and Psychology
Law Enforcement
Legal judgments
Legal Personnel
Liberalism
Male
Mathematical models
Methodology
Original Article
Personality and Social Psychology
Policy Making
Political behavior
Political Conservatism
Political Liberalism
Political Processes
Politics
Preferences
Psychology
Public Policy
Reasoning
Regression Analysis
Research methodology
Statistical analysis
Statutory interpretation
Students
Studies
Supreme Court decisions
Tribal constitutions
United States
United States Supreme Court opinions
Values
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Debate about how to best interpret the Constitution often revolves around interpretive methodologies (e.g., originalism or expansive interpretation). This article examines whether individuals' political orientation influences the methodologies they prefer to use to interpret the Constitution. We study this proposed relationship using a survey of federal law clerks and an experimental study with college students. The survey results indicate that, compared to conservatives, liberal clerks prefer the current meaning or the most plausible appealing meaning of the constitutional text, while conservatives prefer the original meaning of the text. Liberal clerks also prefer to interpret the Constitution much more expansively. The second study manipulates the policy implications of expansive interpretation and finds this manipulation differentially affects liberals' and conservatives' expansiveness preferences.
ISSN:0147-7307
1573-661X
DOI:10.1007/s10979-007-9112-x