In Constitutional Fate, Professor Bobbitt of the University of Texas Law School presents an interrelated series of thoughtful and elegant constitutional law essays. He posits that “the central issue in the constitutional debate of the past twenty-five years has been the legitimacy of the judicial review of constitutional questions by the United States Supreme Court.”‘ Professor Bobbitt conducts his examination of this question via three major thematic presentations, respectively entitled constitutional argument, con- stitutional ethics, and constitutional expressionism. He eschews linking his analysis to any particular political vision and/or to economic analysis. Recognizing that this is an un- conventional approach, Professor Bobbitt is thereby able to deliver a sophisticated constitutional analysis not dependent on any particular political or economic theory for its legitimacy. It is indeed refreshing to find constitutional law analysis liberated from inflexible service to predetermined, doctrinaire political ideology. Appreciating that no one school of constitutional analysis has a monopoly on the constitutional truth, the author begins by examining the strengths and weaknesses of each of five major conventional approaches to constitutional law: historical, textual, doctrinal, prudential, and structural constitutional argument. He demonstrates both the interrelationships and distinctions among these five conventional archetypes of constitutional inquiry.
. . .