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

This comment form is powered by GentleSource Comment Script. It can be included in PHP or HTML files and allows visitors to leave comments on the website.
Online Forum

Responding to Jody Freeman and Jim Rossi, Agency Coordination in Shared Regulatory Space, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1131 (2012)

The More the Merrier: Multiple Agencies and the Future of Administrative Law Scholarship

Eric Biber



Reaction

Salvaging Perry

Andrew Koppelman


Responding to James Q. Whitman, The Free Market and the Prison, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1212 (2012)

On the American Paradox of Laissez Faire and Mass Incarceration

Bernard E. Harcourt



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






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)