Ducking Dred Scott: A Response to Alexander and Schauer

By Sherwin, Emily | Constitutional Commentary, Spring 1998 | Go to article overview

Ducking Dred Scott: A Response to Alexander and Schauer


Sherwin, Emily, Constitutional Commentary


In their article entitled "On Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation,"(1) Larry Alexander and Frederick Schauer promise to provide an "unqualified" defense of the rule of judicial supremacy announced in Cooper v. Aaron.(2) According to that rule, government officials must obey the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, even when they disagree with the Court's interpretation.(3) They are not free to follow their own judgment of what the Constitution requires. The Court has lately reaffirmed the rule of obedience, holding in City of Boerne v. Flores(4) that Congress may not work substantive changes in constitutional interpretation through Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I do not propose to quarrel with the Court, or with Alexander's and Schauer's endorsement of Cooper v. Aaron. My point is that Alexander and Schauer have not gone far enough to accomplish what they would like to accomplish. In fact, their argument is qualified in a very important way.

Alexander and Schauer base their defense of the rule of obedience to Supreme Court decisions on the "settlement function" of law. The primary object of law, in their view, is "to settle authoritatively what is to be done" in contested situations, which in turn will promote social stability and enable individuals to coordinate their actions in mutually beneficial ways.(5) The potential benefits of settled law provide a "content-independent" reason why individuals should obey the law even when they disagree with its commands.(6) The authority of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution stands on the same ground: "[t]he reasons for having laws and a constitution that is treated as law are.., also reasons for establishing one interpreter's interpretation as authoritative."(7)

I find this argument at least potentially persuasive. Settlement, stability, and coordination are important goods that can only be had through a general practice of obedience to rules. They are not the only goods a society might pursue, and few would maintain that they are entitled to lexical priority. Moreover, obedience to decisions of the Supreme Court is certain to result in errors: sometimes the President or Congress will be right and the Court will be wrong. Yet if we expect that the benefits of obedience to Supreme Court decisions are greater than the harm obedience will cause through error, a rule of obedience is justified. I am willing to assume, with Alexander and Schauer, that this is the case, even though the Court will make mistakes and may never correct them.

The weak spot in Alexander's and Schauer's argument emerges when they come to Dred Scott.(8) Having set out their case for a rule of obedience to Supreme Court decisions, they now anticipate an objection: surely Lincoln was right to threaten disobedience to parts of the Court's holding in Dred Scott. To avoid this difficulty, they explain that the obligation they have been defending is in fact only one "overrideable" reason that ought to play a part in official judgment. All things considered--including the obligation to obey--Lincoln was right to disobey the Court. Alexander and Schauer insist that this concession does not undermine their argument:

It just means that [the wrong of disobedience] was outweighed

by the greater wrong that would have occurred had

the war been lost. Once we see that overrideable obligations

are still obligations, we need not say that Lincoln should have

followed Dred Scott.(9)

Thus, the rule of obedience that Alexander and Schauer propose is not a serious rule--a rule to be followed in every case to which it applies. It is simply a consideration, of some undetermined weight, in favor of official obedience in most cases. For reasons I will explain, this apparently subtle distinction between a serious rule of obedience and a reason to obey introduces a crucial qualification to Alexander's and Schauer's defense of Cooper v. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Upgrade your membership to receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad‑free environment

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Upgrade your membership to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Ducking Dred Scott: A Response to Alexander and Schauer
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved in your active project from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Upgrade your membership to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.