Article:
Phillip E. Bobbitt, Constitutional Fate, 58 TEXAS L. REV. 695 (1980).
 

Abstract:
Professor Bobbitt surveys six types of constitutional reasoning used by judges in the process of judicial review -- historical, textual, doctrinal, prudential, structural, and ethical. He argues that all six types of reasoning can, at various times, be legitimately used by judges. And he suggests that this sort of exploration of how judges actually reason in constitutional cases is the only promising way of defending the legitimacy of judicial review.