• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1628 0

—in our example, the belief that there should be a religious exemption from peyote laws—is better explained by a different rule. For instance, as you think through the test cases, you might conclude that your real objection to the peyote ban is that it's factually unjustified (because peyote isn't that harmful), and not that it's paternalistic. You might then substitute a new rule: courts should allow religious exemptions from a law when they find that the religious practice doesn't cause any harm, whether or not the law is paternalistic.

2. Identifying vagueness

You might find that the proposal is unacceptably vague. Say that the proposal was that religious objectors should be exempted from paternalistic laws when “the objectors' interest in practicing their religion outweighs the government's interest in protecting people against themselves.” In the peyote case, this proposal might have satisfied you, because it was clear to you that the government's interest in protecting people against peyote abuse was weak.

But as you apply the proposal to the other cases, you might find that the proposal provides far too little guidance to courts—and might therefore lead to results you think are wrong. This could be a signal for you to clarify the proposal.

3. Finding surprising results

You might find that the proposal reaches a result that you at first think is wrong, but then realize is right. For instance, before applying the proposal to the test suite, you might have assumed that religious objectors shouldn't get exemptions from assisted suicide bans. But after you think more about this test case in light of your proposal, you might conclude that your intuition about assisted suicide was mistaken.

You should keep this finding in mind, and discuss it in the article: It may help you show the value of your claim, because it shows that the proposal yields counterintuitive but sound results.

4. Confirming the value of your proposal

You might find that the proposal precisely fits the results that you think are proper. This should make you more confident of the proposal's soundness; and it would also provide some examples that you can use in the article to illustrate the proposal's soundness (as Part V.C, p. 67, discusses).

C. Developing the Test Suite

How can you identify good items for your test suites? Here are a few suggestions.

1. Identify what needs to be tested

The test suite is supposed to test the proposed legal principle on which the claim is based. Sometimes, the claim is itself the principle: For instance, if the proposal is that “the proper rule for evaluating requests for religious exemptions from paternalistic laws is [such-and-such],” you would need a set of several cases to which this rule can be applied.

But sometimes the claim is just an application of the principle: For instance, the claim that “religious objectors should get exemptions from peyote laws” probably rests on a broader implicit principle that describes which exemption requests should be granted. If that's so, then you should come up with a set of cases that test this underlying principle. One case should involve peyote bans but the others shouldn't.

2. Use plausible test cases

Each test case should be plausible: It should be the sort of situation that might actually happen. It's good to base it on a real incident, whether one drawn from a reported court decision or a newspaper article. You need not precisely follow the real incident, and you may assume slightly different facts if necessary—the goal is to have the reader acknowledge that the case could happen the way it's described, not that it necessarily has happened. But you should make sure that any alterations still leave the test case as realistic as possible.

3. Include the famous precedents

The test suite should include the famous precedents in this field. This can help confirm for you and the readers that the proposal is consistent with those cases—or can help explain which famous cases would have to be reversed under the proposal.

4. Include