Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Constitutional Law

Constitution

Michigan Law Review

1992

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Legal Interpretation And A Constitutional Case: Home Building & Loan Association V. Blaisdell, Charles A. Bieneman Aug 1992

Legal Interpretation And A Constitutional Case: Home Building & Loan Association V. Blaisdell, Charles A. Bieneman

Michigan Law Review

The approaches of Hughes and Sutherland are but two extremes in constitutional interpretation. Though only two results were possible in the case - either the Act was constitutional or it was not - there are more than two methods by which an interpreter could reach those results. This Note explores possible ways of deciding Blaisdell, using the case as a vehicle for delimiting the boundaries of a positive constitutional command. As a sort of empirical investigation of legal philosophy, the Note examines how various interpretive theories affect an interpreter's approach to the case, and the results these theories might …


On Reading The Constitution, Bruce Fein May 1992

On Reading The Constitution, Bruce Fein

Michigan Law Review

A Review of On Reading the Constitution by Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf


The Age Of Rights, Stephen D. Sencer May 1992

The Age Of Rights, Stephen D. Sencer

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Age of Rights by Louis Henkin


The Supreme Court As Constitutional Interpreter: Chronology Without History, Herbert Hovenkamp May 1992

The Supreme Court As Constitutional Interpreter: Chronology Without History, Herbert Hovenkamp

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888-1986 by David P. Currie


The Failed Discourse Of State Constitutionalism, James A. Gardner Feb 1992

The Failed Discourse Of State Constitutionalism, James A. Gardner

Michigan Law Review

In this article, I approach these questions in two steps. First, I examine the status of state constitutional law as it is practiced today. I conclude that, contrary to the claims of New Federalism, state constitutional law today is a vast wasteland of confusing, conflicting, and essentially unintelligible pronouncements. I argue that the fundamental defect responsible for this state of affairs is the failure of state courts to develop a coherent discourse of state constitutional law that is, a language in which it is possible for participants in the legal system to make intelligible claims about the meaning of state …