Constitutional Fictions: A Unified Theory of Constitutional Facts

Constitutional Fictions: A Unified Theory of Constitutional Facts

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 1-200

  Faigman, David L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Application; Constitution; Constitutional facts; Fact finding; Interpretation; Justices

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855925372     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341270.001.0001     Document Type: Book

References (157)

1. David L. Faigman, "Normative Constitutional Fact-Finding": Exploring the Empirical Component of Constitutional Interpretation, 139 U. PA. L. REV. 541 (1991).
2. Kenneth Culp Davis, An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process, 55 HARV. L. REV. 364, (1942).
3. Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Text, 7.03, at 160 (3d ed., 1972).
4. Laurens Walker and John Monahan, Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law, 73 VA. L. REV. 559, (1987).
5. Robert E. Keeton, Legislative Facts and Similar Things: Deciding Disputed Premise Facts, 73 MINN. L. REV. 1, (1988).
6. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., A Constructivist Coherence Theory of Constitutional Interpretation, 100 HARV. L. REV. 1189 (1987);
7. Michael Perry, The Authority of Text, Tradition, and Reason: A Theory of Constitutional "Interpretation," 58 CAL. L. REV. 551 (1985).
8. Burton Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)
9. Ronald J. Allen & Michael S. Pardo, The Myth of the Law-Fact Distinction, 97 NW. U. L. REV. 1769 (2003).
10. Kyllo United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
11. David L. Faigman, Judges as "Amateur Scientists,"86 B.U. L. REV. 1207 (2006).
12. DAVID L. FAIGMAN, ET AL., MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY (2008) (Chapter 1).
13. ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT AT THE BAR OF POLITICS 16-23 (1962)
14. Scott E. Sundby, The Reasonable Doubt Rule and the Meaning of Innocence, 40 HASTINGS L.J. 457 (1989).
15. SHERI H. MECKLENBURG, ILL. STATE POLICE, REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS: THE ILLINOIS PILOT PROGRAM ON SEQUENTIAL, DOUBLE-BLIND IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES (2006)
16. [hereinafter Illinois Report], available athttp://www.chicagopolice.org/IL Pilot on Eyewitness ID.pdf.
17. Gary L. Wells & Elizabeth A. Olson, Eyewitness Testimony, 54 ANN. REV. PSYCHOL. 277 (2003).
18. Nancy Steblay et al., Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison, 25 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 459 (2001).
19. Christian A. Meissner et al., Eyewitness Decisions in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups: A Dual-Process Signal Detection Theory Analysis, 33 MEMORY & COGNITION 783 (2005).
20. Ryann M. Haw & Ronald P. Fisher, Effects of Administrator-Witness Contact on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy, 89 J. APPLIED PSYCHOL. 1106,(2004).
21. Peter H. Schuck & E. Donald Elliott, To the Chevron Station: An Empirical Study of Federal Administrative Law, 1990 DUKE L.J. 984;
22. David J. Barron & Elena Kagan, Chevron's Nondelegation Doctrine, 2001 SUP. CT. REV. 201.
23. McCulloch Maryland, 4 Wheat (17 U.S.) 316 (1819).
24. David H. Gans, Strategic Facial Challenges, 85 B.U. L. REV. 1333 (2005)
25. Matthew Adler, Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure of American Constitutional Law, 97 MICH. L. REV. 154-55 (1998)
26. Michael C. Dorf, Facial Challenges to State and Federal Statutes, 46 STAN. L. REV. 264-71 (1994).
27. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966
28. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
29. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
30. Laurence H. Tribe & Michael C. Dorf, Levels of Generality in the Definition of Rights, 57 U. Chi. L. REV. 1057 (1990).
31. John Monahan, Clinical and Actuarial Predictions of Violence, in MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY (Faigman et al. eds., 2008).
32. Young v. Weston, 192 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 1999).
33. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Making Sense of Overbreadth, 100 YALE L.J. 853, (1991);
34. Frederick Schauer, Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the "Chilling Effect," 58 B.U. L. REV. 685, (1978).
35. Lee C. Yang, Donald R. Taylor, Howard H. Kaufman, Roderick Hume, & Byron Calhoun, Maternal and Fetal Outcomes of Spontaneous Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes, 104 J. AM. OSTEOPATHIC ASS'N 537-42 (2004)
36. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MEDICINE (2006), reported at http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/prematurity.jsp
37. EDWARD LAZARUS, CLOSED CHAMBERS: THE RISE, FALL, AND FUTURE OF THE MODERN SUPREME COURT, 357-58 (1998).
38. Joan L. Larsen, Lawrence and the Rehnquist Court's Use of Foreign and International Law in Domestic Constitutional Interpretation, 65 OHIO ST. L.J. 1283, (2004)
39. Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997)
40. Edmund Cahn, Jurisprudence, 30 N.Y.U. L. REV. 157-58 (1955)
41. Ronald Dworkin, Social Sciences and Constitutional Rights-The Consequences of Uncertainty, J. L. & EDUC. 6 (1977): 3
42. David L. Faigman, To Have and Have Not: Assessing the Value of Social Science to the Law as Science and Policy, 38 EMORY L.J. 1005 (1989).
43. Ronald Dworkin, Law as Interpretation, 60 TEX. L. REV. 527, (1982).
44. Stanley Fish, "Working on the Chain Gang" Interpretation in Law and Literature, 60 TEX. L. REV. 551 (1982).
45. David L. Faigman, "Normative Constitutional Fact-Finding": Exploring the Empirical Component of Constitutional Interpretation, 139 U. PA. L. REV. 541 (1991).
46. Stuart Minor Benjamin, Stepping Into the Same River Twice: Rapidly Changing Facts and the Appellate Process, 78 TEX. L. REV. 269 (1999).
47. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, (1997)
48. State of Ariz. v. State of Cal., 373 U.S. 546 (1963)
49. Ronald J. Allen & Michael S. Pardo, The Myth of the Law-Fact Distinction, 97 NW. L. REV. 1769 (2003).
50. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, (1973).
51. City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687, (1999)
52. CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS 108, at 759 (4th ed. 1983)
53. Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, (1946)
54. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Law in Science and Science in Law, 12 HARV. L. REV. 443, (1899)
55. Niki Kuckes, The Useful, Dangerous Fiction of Grand Jury Independence, 41 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1, (2004)
56. Shari Seidman Diamond, Truth, the Jury, and the Adversarial System: Truth, Justice, and the Jury, 26 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 143 (2003);
57. The Selection and Function of the Modern Jury:Jurors' Attitudes About Civil Litigation and the Size of Damage Awards, 40 AM. U.L. REV. 805 (1991).
58. Kaimipono David Wenger & David A. Hoffman, Nullificatory Juries, 2003 WIS. L. REV. 1115;
59. David A. Pepper, Nullifying History: Modern-Day Misuse of the Right to Decide the Law, 50 CASE W. RDES. L. REV. 599 (2000).
60. James P. Timony, Demeanor Credibility, 49 CATH. U. L. REV. 903 (2000).
61. ALDERT VRIJ, DETECTING LIES AND DECEIT (2000);
62. Roger C. Park, Empirical Evaluation of the Hearsay Rule, in PETER MIRFIELD & ROGER SMITH eds., ESSAYS FOR COLIN TAPPER, 91-106 (LexisNexis UK 2003).
63. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW 98 (M. Howe ed., 1963)
64. Henry P. Monaghan, Constitutional Fact Review, 85 COLUM. L. REV. 229, (1985)
65. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, (1997).
66. David L. Faigman, Appellate Review of Scientific Evidence Under Daubert and Joiner, 48 HASTINGS L.J. 969 (1997).
67. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, (1942).
68. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, (1965)
69. George C. Christie, Judicial Review of Findings of Fact, 87 Nw. L. Rev. 14 (1992).
70. Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982)
71. Webster v. Reproductive Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
72. Ashutosh Bhagwat, Purpose Scrutiny in Constitutional Analysis, 85 CAL. L. REV. 297 (1997).
73. Caitlin E. Borgmann, Rethinking Judicial Deference to Legislative Factfinding, 84 IND. L.J. (forthcoming 2008).
74. Gerald Gunther, The Supreme Court, 1971 Term-Foreward: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 HARV. L. REV. 33-36 (1972).
75. Calvin Massey, The New Formalism: Requiem for Tiered Scrutiny?, 6 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 945 (2004).
76. Eugene Volokh, Speech as Conduct: Generally Applicable Laws, Illegal Courses of Conduct, "Situation-Altering Utterances," and the Uncharted Zones, 90 CORNELL L. REV. 1277, (2005).
77. Ashutosh Bhagwat, The Test That Ate Everything: Intermediate Scrutiny in First Amendment Jurisprudence, 2007 U. ILL. L. REV. 783.
78. Ashutosh Bhagwat, Of Markets and Media: The First Amendment, The New Mass Media, and the Political Components of Culture, 74 N.C. L. REV. 141, (1995).
79. Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, (1992)
80. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, (2002)
81. Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, (1995)
82. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 200-01 (1976)
83. Nguyen v. I.N.S., 533 U.S. 53, (2001)
84. Griswold v. Conn., 381 U.S. 479, (1965)
85. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, (1961)
86. Skinner v. Okla., 316 U.S. 535, (1942)
87. Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, (1925)
88. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, (1987)
89. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, (2001)
90. Henry P. Monaghan, Marbury and the Administrative State, 83 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1983).
91. Kenneth Culp Davis, An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process, 55 HARV. L. REV. 364 (1942).
92. John Dickinson, Crowell v. Benson: Judicial Review of Administrative Questions of "Constitutional Fact,"80 U. PA. L. REV. 1055, (1932)
93. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229 (1953)
94. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (physician-assisted suicide).
95. United States v. New York, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
96. Henry P. Monaghan, Our Perfect Constitution, 56 N.Y.U. L. REV. 353, (1981).
97. William Brennan, My Encounters with the Constitution, Judges J., Summer 1987, at 7.
98. H. Jefferson Powell, The Original Understanding of Original Intent, 98 HARV. L. REV. 885, (1985).
99. Martin S. Flaherty, History "Lite" in Modern American Constitutionalism, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 523, (1995);
100. The Republican Civil Tradition: Beyond the Republican Revival 97 YALE L.J. 1539, (1988);
101. James S. Liebman & Brandon L. Garrett, Madisonian Equal Protection, 104 COLUM. L. REV. 837 (2004).
102. BERNARD BAILYN, ed., THE DEBATE ON THE CONSTITUTION, Volume 1, 170-71 (1990).
103. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, (1995)
104. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, (1999).
105. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, (1997).
106. David L. Faigman, The Law's Scientific Revolution: Reflections and Ruminations on the Law's Use of Experts in Year Seven of the Revolution, 57 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 661 (2000).
107. Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, (1986)).
108. David L. Faigman, Madisonian Balancing: A Theory of Constitutional Adjudication, 8 NW. L. REV. 641 (1994).
109. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, (1964)
110. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, 466 U.S. 485 (1984);
111. JAMES ROBERT BROWN, WHO RULES IN SCIENCE: AN OPINIONATED GUIDE TO THE WARS (2001);
112. STATHIS PSILLOS, SCIENTIFIC REALISM: HOW SCIENCE TRACKS TRUTH (1999);
113. MICHAEL DEVITT, REALISM AND TRUTH (2nd ed. 1991).
114. KARL POPPER, THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY 44 (Harper & Row 1968)
115. WILLIAM P. ALSTON, A REALIST CONCEPTION OF TRUTH (1996).
116. THOMAS KUHN, THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (1970).
117. David L. Faigman, "Normative Constitutional Fact-Finding": Exploring the Empirical Component of Constitutional Interpretation, 139 U. PA. L. REV. 541 (1991).
118. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, (1819).
119. Martha L. Fineman & Anne Opie, The Uses of Social Science Data in Legal Policymaking: Custody Determinations at Divorce, 1987 WIS. L. REV. 107;
120. David M. O'Brien, The Seduction of the Judiciary: Social Science and the Courts, 64 JUDICATURE 8, (1980);
121. Harry Wilmer Jones, Legal Inquiry and the Methods of Science, in LAW AND THE SOCIAL ROLE OF SCIENCE 120, 128-29 (H. Jones ed., 1966).
122. Michael J. Saks, The Law Does Not Live By Eyewitness Testimony Alone, 10 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 279 (1986);
123. Wallace Loh, Psycholegal Research: Past and Present, 79 MICH. L. REV., 678 (1981).
124. Elizabeth Loftus, Reconstruction Memory: The Incredible Eyewitness, 15 JURIMETRICS J. 188, (1975)
125. Michael Finch & Mark Ferraro, The Empirical Challenge to Death-Qualified Juries: On Further Examination, 65 NEB. L. REV. 21, (1986)
126. William C. Thompson, Death Qualification After Wainwright v. Witt and Lockhart v. McCree, 13 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 185 (1989)
127. David L. Faigman, "Normative Constitutional Fact-Finding": Exploring the Empirical Component of Constitutional Interpretation, 139 U. PA. L. REV. 541, (1991).
128. KARL POPPER, THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY 44 (1959)
129. Herbert Feigl, Operationism and Scientific Method, 52 PSYCHOLOGICAL REV. 252-53 (1945)
130. For an excellent discussion of windchill, including conversion charts, http://www.weather.gov/om/windchill/index.shtml.
131. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
132. THOMAS GRISSO, JUVENILES' WAIVER OF RIGHTS: LEGAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPETENCE 41-58 (1981);
133. Lois A. Weithorn & Emily Campbell, The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions, 53 CHILD. DEV. 1589,(1982)
134. David L. Faigman, Judges as "Amateur Scientists," 86 B.U. L. REV. 1207 (2006).
135. DAVID L. FAIGMAN ET AL., MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY (2008)
136. John Passmore, Can the Social Sciences Be Value-Free?, in READINGS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 674 (H. Feigl & M. Brodbeck eds., 1953).
137. Jocelyn Kaiser, Taking a Stand: Ecologists on a Mission to Save the World, 287 SCIENCE 1188 (2000).
138. Michael J. Mahoney, Experimental Methods and Outcome Evaluation, 46 J. CONSULTING & CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY , 660 (1978)
139. SUSAN HAACK, DEFENDING SCIENCE - WITHIN REASON: BETWEEN SCIENTISM AND CYNICISM (2003);
140. D. HULL, SCIENCE AS A PROCESS: AN EVOLUTIONARY ACCOUNT OF THE SOCIAL AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE (1988).
141. William C. Whitford, Critical Empiricism, 14 LAW & SOC. INQUIRY , 62 (1989)
142. Howard T. Markey, Jurisprudence or "Juriscience"?, 25 WM. & MARY L. REV. 525, (1984).
143. Gary B. Melton & A. Anita J. Pliner, Adolescent Abortion: A Psychological Analysis, in ADOLESCENT ABORTION: PSYCHOLOGICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES 5 (G. Melton ed., 1986).
144. Joseph L. Hoffman, On the Perils of Line-Drawing: Juveniles and the Death Penalty, 40 HASTINGS L.J. 229 (1989).
145. Rudner, The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments, in INTRODUCTORY READINGS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 231 (E.D. Klemke, R. Hollinger & A. David Kline eds., 1980).
146. K. Mannheim, IDEOLOGY AND UTOPIA: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 271 (1959).
147. ALBERT EINSTEIN, RELATIVITY: THE SPECIAL AND THE GENERAL THEORY 9 (Holt ed. 1920).
148. Supreme Court of the United States (2005), http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/03-00633qp.pdf.
149. Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Interpretations and Institutions, 101 Mich. L. Rev. 885 (2003)
150. DAVID L. FAIGMAN, DAVID H. KAYE, MICHAEL J. SAKS & JOSEPH SANDERS, MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY (2008).
151. John Monahan & David B. Wexler, A Definite Maybe: Proof and Probability in Civil Commitment, 2 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 37, (1978).
152. John Monahan & Henry J. Steadman, Violent Storms and Violent People: How Meteorology Can Inform Risk Communication in Mental Health Law, 51 AM. PSYCHOLOGIST , 931-38 (1996).
153. DAVID L. FAIGMAN, LABORATORY OF JUSTICE: THE SUPREME COURT'S 200-YEAR STRUGGLE TO INTEGRATE SCIENCE AND THE LAW (2004).
154. Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).
155. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457, (1897).
156. Herbert Wechsler, Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law, 73 HARV. L. REV. 1, (1959).
157. Ferraro, The Empirical Challenge to Death Qualified Juries: On Further Examination, 65 NEB. L. REV. 21, (1986).