Cosmin Vraciu

According to the Asymmetry Thesis, the conditions (whatever they are) that suffice to make coerced consent invalid vis-à-vis the coercer do not also suffice to make that consent invalid vis-à-vis innocent third parties. In this paper, I argue against the Asymmetry Thesis. I develop an argument – which I call the Scope of Subordination Argument – which shows that the Asymmetry Thesis is incorrect, and which offers, along the way, a new understanding of the relationship between the nature of claim-rights and valid consent.

On one account, courts ought to enforce legislative intent only when the public meaning of the text of the statute is unclear, and on another account, they should enforce the intent even when the public meaning is clear. In this paper, I argue against both approaches. My argument rests on considerations related to the moral authority of the democratically made law. More specifically, I argue that those considerations which make democratic law morally authoritative entail that judges ought to enforce the public meaning, when this is clear, and that interpretation of the public meaning which is closest to the balance of moral reasons, when the public meaning is unclear.