A Taxonomy of Constitutional Arguments

Abstract

This article explores how the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (and the House of Lords) has generally appealed to four forms of constitutional arguments when interpreting the Human Rights Act 1998: (i) textual arguments, (ii) historical arguments, (iii) precedential arguments, and (iv) consequentialist arguments. The author will also illustrate how the various types of constitutional arguments are substantially interdependent and interrelated, such that they often dovetail with one another to reach a reasonably coherent and defensible legal result.