Publication Date

2011

Journal

Pepperdine Law Review

Abstract

The article critiques Professor Sanford Levinson's defense of compromise in constitutionalism, arguing that while compromise is ubiquitous, it is not inherently just or morally sound. The author, Richard Weisberg, contends that Levinson's flexible hermeneutic approach risks degrading textual integrity and ethical standards, particularly when compromise is elevated to a norm. Weisberg advocates for maintaining the integrity of sacred and legal texts, emphasizing the dangers of interpretive flexibility, especially in emergencies, and draws parallels to historical examples like Vichy France's complicity in Nazi policies.

Volume

38

Issue

Special Issue

First Page

925

Last Page

936

Publisher

Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law

Disciplines

Constitutional Law | Jurisprudence | Law | Law and Politics

Comments

Compromise and Constitutionalism

Download

Share

COinS