I.CON’s recent issue opens with two theoretical papers, each employing a comparative methodology in the theorization of constitutional ideas and practices. Focusing on originalist approaches in the United States and Australia, Lael Weis illustrates how a comparative work can advance our debates on constitutional interpretation. Apart from offering an insightful analysis of originalism and its potential justification, Weis also shows how the lack of comparative sensibilities impedes the proper evaluation of the originalist position. Australian constitutional law is also the site for Scott Stephenson’s study of the migration of the Canadian idea of constitutional dialogue. Stephenson traces the deliberate modification of this idea in Australia, and uses this experience to elaborate his theory of constitutional reengineering.
We have made both of these articles freely available to I·CONnect readers, and we invite you to join the discussion.
Click on the title to access the full-text paper:
Lael K. Weis, What comparativism tells us about originalism
Scott Stephenson, Constitutional reengineering: Dialogue’s migration from Canada to Australia
Comments