Rubric · canonical · CONSTITUTIONAL-STRUCTURE-v2

Constitutional structural argument

For arguments about separation of powers, federalism, and constitutional design — not about a single statute. Scores fidelity to text, structural reasoning, and historical practice.

Status canonical Criteria 5 (equally weighted) Updated March 2026

When this rubric applies

The argument’s conclusion is about the constitutional allocation of power — between branches, between federal and state, or about a structural feature like the spending power, the appointments clause, or the commerce clause. The question turns on text, structure, history, and precedent rather than on a single statute’s meaning.

Not appropriate when: the dispute is about what a particular statute requires (use STATUTORY-INTERP), about whether a policy is wise (use POLICY-TRADEOFF), or about an empirical premise of a constitutional case (use SCIENTIFIC-CLAIM).

Criteria

1. Engagement with constitutional text

weight 20%

Does the argument cite specific constitutional provisions, defined terms, and structural placement?

10Quotes and parses the operative clause; addresses defined terms and where the clause sits in Article structure. 7Cites the right clause loosely; the argument floats slightly free of the text. 4Refers to "the Constitution" generically; doesn’t identify which provision does the work. 1Treats the Constitution as a mood, not a text.

2. Use of structural inferences

weight 20%

When the text is silent or ambiguous, does the argument reason from the document’s structure (separation of powers, enumeration of federal powers, dual sovereignty) rather than asserting a preferred outcome?

10Identifies the structural principle, shows it is implicit in the document’s design, and applies it to the question. 7Invokes a structural principle; the link to the document’s design is plausible but compressed. 4Asserts a structural principle by name without showing how it’s embedded in the document. 1Treats a preferred policy outcome as if it were a structural requirement.

3. Treatment of historical practice

weight 20%

Does the argument engage longstanding practice (or its absence) as evidence of the constitutional baseline?

10Cites specific historical practice with dates and actors; engages contrary practice if it exists. 7Invokes "tradition" generally; cites one named example. 4Asserts a tradition without examples; ignores contrary practice that complicates the claim. 1Invents a tradition that the historical record does not support.

4. Adherence to controlling precedent

weight 20%

Does the argument engage the cases that bind the question, including any post-2022 narrowing?

10Names controlling cases, applies their tests, and addresses cases that cut the other way. 7Cites the right cases but skips a holding that complicates the conclusion. 4Cites a case that has since been narrowed without acknowledging the narrowing. 1No engagement with controlling precedent.

5. Logical coherence

weight 20%

Do the premises (text, structure, history, precedent) actually support the conclusion, or is there a missing inferential step?

10Premises chain cleanly; the conclusion is what the four sources, taken together, actually require. 7One unstated assumption does material work but is plausible. 4An inferential gap (e.g., conflating "Congress has not done X" with "Congress cannot do X") carries the argument. 1Conclusion does not follow from the premises offered.

Version history

v2March 2026 · added criterion 5 explicitly to penalize structural arguments where the inferential step from text/history to outcome is glossed

v1September 2025 · initial publication