ABSTRACT
Rationality, as a test, purports to address itself to that part of the lawmaking hypothesis that deals with prediction, with causes and effects in the world of physical and social reality. If responsible lawmaking is the premise of review, the purpose against which the rationality of the means is tested must obviously be the purpose intended at the time of enactment. Legitimate ends and rational means must coincide at the time of the legislative decision, if responsible lawmaking is the constitutional premise. The response, on the part of proponents of the doctrine of instrumental rationality, is that by insisting on the identification of purposes, whatever they may be, the doctrine promotes candor in the legislative process. Candor in giving reasons for a policy can be a mixed blessing. Articulated reasons have their place in an agency's pursuit of the goals assigned to it. Pursued into the legislative process, the hope for candor is more likely to produce hypocrisy.
