Article:
Philip Bobbitt, A Reply To Professor Ball, 59 TEXAS. L. REV. 829 (1981).
 

Abstract:
Profesor Bobbitt uses his article to reply to Professor Ball’s complaints that Bobbitt does not examine the relation between constitutional arguments on the one hand and social, economic and political interests on the other. Bobbitt states that this criticism is premised upon a fundamentally flawed reading of his work. He defends his theories with the claim that his lectures are composed for an audience who was in sympathy with their spirit. He concedes that the “sprit” that permeates his lectures and which dictates to whom they are directed is not currently in vogue in American constitutional philosophy, which seems to hold that the law is in need of a foundation constructed from political theory. Bobbitt professes that he is simply not interested in engaging in such a foundation construction endeavor. Instead, he is concerned with taking a “perspicious” view of the structures that make such justification possible. To reiterate, the purpose of Bobbitt’s lectures can be summarized as follows: to show that superimposing political theories on the doctrine of judicial review does not account for the doctrine and cannot offer a justification for it.