Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [40]
3. Connections: Exporting to broader debates
Just as broad debates can have applications to narrower problems, good solutions to the narrower problems can illuminate a broader issue. If you have persuasively shown that the right answer here is X, and some broader theory says that the answer should be Y, then your concrete point is evidence that the broader theory is mistaken (or at least is not applicable here), and that the theory's rivals may be more sound. For instance, if you show that certain speech should be protected under the First Amendment even though it would be unprotected under some free speech theory (the “marketplace of ideas,” the “constitutional tension method,” or what have you), then you might use your conclusion to cast doubt on the value of that theory more generally.
If done right, this sort of connection will make your piece deeper and more useful, and thus more impressive. People often accept or reject broad legal theories based not just on abstract legal arguments, but also on how well the theories fit with the results that seem proper in specific cases. Your article may provide powerful practical support or a powerful practical counterexample to some broad theoretical argument.
4. Connections: Importing from parallel areas
Sometimes, the best connections for your article come not from broader theories but from analogous issues in parallel areas. For instance, say that you are writing about whether waiting periods for buying a gun violate state constitutional right to keep and bear arms provisions.* Can you draw some analogies from the cases dealing with waiting periods for abortions, parade permits, or voting?
The analogies need not be perfect; you can often enrich your argument by pointing out the differences between your area and the other areas that at first might seem similar. Your reader might already have thought of these apparent similarities, and your discussion can dispel the reader's misconceptions. Likewise, the very process of pointing out the differences between, say, self-defense rights, abortion rights, speech rights, and voting rights might make the proof of your claim more persuasive. And sometimes, as with the importation from broader debates, the analogies may help you refine the claim itself.
5. Connections: Exporting to parallel areas
Again, once you're done seeing what light the analogies from parallel areas can shed on your problem, you should ask whether your solution sheds light on the parallel questions. If you conclude that waiting periods for buying guns don't unduly burden self-defense rights, can you generalize to a broader claim about waiting periods for the exercise of other constitutional rights? If you think that the answer should be different in different situations, can you come up with a general principle that distinguishes contexts where waiting periods are undue burdens from contexts where they aren't? Or can you at least draw a distinction that can help differentiate the two kinds of contexts, even if it can't do the entire job itself?
Even if there isn't yet any broader academic debate on your general subject, your claim might have possible consequences that would be worth noting. For instance, your argument about one provision of a statute might illuminate the interpretation of other provisions; you don't need to analyze those provisions fully, but it helps if you at least highlight your argument's implications. Perhaps you can start a broader academic discussion yourself.
6. Connections to subsidiary questions
Finally, consider what will happen if your claim is accepted. To