Anti- non-Interpretivist (Iredell) view:
– court does not have power to declare natural law. Art III doesn’t have power to do this.
– policy of America to guard against such an evil by defining w/ precision the objects of leg. power
– cannot pronounce legislation void b/c of court’s judgment that is against natural law
– natural justice has no fixed standard, it varies among men
Note: not interpretivist b/c doesn’t stick to text expressly, rather he is anti-Chase
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to What is the Anti- non-Interpretivist (Iredell) view in the case of Calder v. Bull (1798)?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.