Search results
Edward Rubin is University Professor of Law and Political Science at Vanderbilt University. He specializes in administrative law, constitutional law and legal theory. He is the author of Soul, Self and Society: The New Morality and the Modern State (Oxford, 2015); Beyond Camelot: Rethinking Politics and Law for the Modern State (Princeton, 2005 ...
- Lee A. Casey
Lee A. Casey focuses on federal environmental,...
- Jordan Lorence
Jordan Lorence serves as senior counsel and director of...
- Harmeet K. Dhillon
Harmeet Dhillon is a nationally recognized lawyer, trusted...
- Jennifer Walker Elrod
For the past fourteen years, Jennifer Walker Elrod has...
- Jonathan Lowy
Jonathan E. Lowy is the Vice President, Legal and Chief...
- Richard H. Pildes
Richard H. Pildes is one of the nation’s leading scholars of...
- F. Scott Kieff
The Honorable F. Scott Kieff is the Fred C. Stevenson...
- Alan B. Morrison
Alan B. Morrison is the Lerner Family Associate Dean for...
- Lee A. Casey
Edward L. Rubin. I. Defining Democracy. A discussion of democracy should begin with a definition of the term so that the scope of the discussion is clear. Because democracy, whatever else it may be, is certainly a type of state, or government, it would seem that it will be necessary to move backward and define “state” before proceeding.
Edward RUBIN | Cited by 1,502 | of Vanderbilt University, TN (Vander Bilt) | Read 84 publications | Contact Edward RUBIN.
U. L. REV. 1227, 1234, 1254 (1995) (arguing the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme best illustrates reflexive environmental law); Edward Rubin, The Myth of Accountability and the Anti-Administrative Impulse, 103 MICH. L. REV. 2073, 2084 (2005) (noting that pro-federalism arguments can be formal or functional and that Printz embodies a
- Law And
- determined by conscious human effort.
- B. Legal Scholarship and Literary Criticism
- C. Legal Scholarship and Moral Philosophy
- Law And
- Law And
- A. The Nature of Legal Discourse
- B. The Limits of Legal Discourse
- C. The Use of Social Science in Legal Discourse
- Law And
It can be challenged on philosophic grounds, but, as a sociological observation about scientists' beliefs, it remains as true today as it was before our epistemological doubts took hold. Legal scholarship differs from natural science in the prescriptive purpose it adopts. This difference follows, as an almost necessary consequence, from our present...
13. See generally IMRE LAKATOS, THE METHODOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAMMEs (1978). WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW nonacademic actors. In dealing with this external information, legal scholarship necessarily adopts a reactive approach."4 Secondly, the nature of the discovered phenomenon in science is defined by the discipline, whether this definition c...
Another source of methodological assistance for legal scholarship is literary criticism, in many ways the diametric opposite of natural science. "Law and literature" once referred to compilations of literary works depicting lawyers-an enterprise that any law-trained person would need to be a masochist to undertake-but now constitutes an important t...
Philosophy, and more specifically moral philosophy, serves as another potential source of methodology for legal scholarship. It is a current subject of debate among philosophers whether morality is descriptive. Moral realists assert that a system of morality can be derived from some state of the world external to morality itself, most typically hum...
Apart from the different quality of its normative stance, philosophy is distinguished from law by its nonreactive quality,, its ability to set its own agenda. Philosophy certainly responds to broad-based changes in the intellectual climate of society, but so does everything else; its focus on the underlying nature and significance of events preclud...
analyzing a different culture, often focus on that culture's law as a major object of attention; sociologists frequently concern themselves with criminal behavior, the police,, law-related business practices, or even lawyers themselves; political scientists study law-making, law implementation, and judicial dispute resolution; economists are concer...
The defining feature of standard legal scholarship is its prescriptive voice; as shown in the preceding section, it is this feature that distinguishes it from other academic fields. The most important distinction is between this prescriptive voice and the descriptive voice that characterizes natural and social science. As Max Weber perceived, both ...
The discursive distinction between description and prescription thus divides law from other disciplines, and establishes it as a distinctive academic methodology. It appears, however, to leave legal scholarship in a worse state than before; no one seems very certain what its separate methodology should be, and it appears as if there is even less re...
Combining the separate discourse of legal scholarship, the reactive and involved nature of that discourse, and the recognition that the discourse cannot function autonomously, leads to a fairly obvious conclusion: legal scholarship must rely on other disciplines to characterize external events and effects, although it must continue to develop its o...
borrow empirical insights from social science. Considering them will serve to clarify the contrary assertion that this Article advances. According to Bobbitt, judicial review in constitutional law is a practice, not a theory. It consists of six forms, or modalities, of argument: historical argument, which relies on the intent of the framers; textua...
EDWARD L. RUBIN . Vanderbilt University Law School 131 21st Avenue South Nashville, TN 37203 Office: (615) 322-5620 Fax: (215) 322-6631 Email: ed.rubin@vanderbilt.edu. _________________________________________________________________________________ EDUCATION . Yale Law School: 1976 to 1979, J.D. City College of New York: 1969.
Edward L. Rubin View all authors and affiliations. Volume 574, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620157400103. Contents. Get access. More. Abstract. Federalism is a system of governmental organization that grants subunits of a polity definitive rights against the central government.
