Year: 1985
Type: dissertation
Abstract: I. constitutional jurisprudence concerning the federal Constitution and to examine some examples of such theories.Finally, these jurisprudential concerns will be considered in light of some distinct differences between state consti tutions and governments and the federal Constitution and government.From this analysis, it will be concluded that in many important respects, theories of federal constitutional jurisprudence are not appropriate to state constitutions.II.CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE AND ITS LEGAL ROLE From its latin derivation, the term, jurisprudence, means wisdom about law.This wisdom, however, is not simply knowledge of the laws; rather it is an attempt to understand how the laws fit together and what sort of overarching principles provide the glue to keep them together.^Constitutional jurisprudence is a species of juris prudence.It is concerned with a certain kind of law, fundamental law.A constitution is fundamental in that it founds the institutions that will be responsible for enacting all other laws and purports to demarcate the re spective powers of and restrictions upon these institutions.Because the United States Constitution does not ex plicitly address what legal effect it should have, answering this question has been the primary task of constitutional jurisprudence in this country.This question has been asked as two theoretically distinct but practically interrelated
Source: The Mathematics Enthusiast
Author: Dennis NettikSimmons
Institution: University of Montana
Language: English
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2474627945