“Constitutional Redundancies and Clarifying Clauses,” 33 Val. U. L. Rev. 1 (1998)
My topic today is redundancy of a certain sort-eonstitutional redundancy. You will perhaps have noticed that my topic sentence itself arguably involved a kind of redundancy-the word "redundancy" appeared twice. Does this make it a bad topic sentence? I hope not. Rather, I hope the end of my topic sentence helped clarify the beginning of the sentence by making express what might otherwise only have been implied. Since I am not a linguist but a constitutional scholar, when I said my topic today is redundancy of a certain sort, most of you probably inferred that I meant to address constitutional redundancy. Rather than leaving this to inference, however, I thought it best to be explicit. But suppose I had said instead that "my topic today is constitutional redundancy, which is my topic today." Would that have been a bad topic sentence? I think so. But what, exactly, is the difference between these two kinds of redundancy-the good kind and the bad kind-and how is that difference relevant to constitutional interpretation? These questions are also part of my topic today.
Date of Authorship for this Version
Amar, Akhil Reed, "Constitutional Redundancies and Clarifying Clauses" (1998). Faculty Scholarship Series. 948.