Law Commons^™

The Irony Of Judicial Elections, David E. Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

Judicial elections in the United States have undergone a dramatic transformation. For more than a century, these state and local elections were relatively dignified, low-key affairs. Campaigning was minimal; incumbents almost always won; few people voted or cared. Over the past quarter century and especially the past decade, however, a rise in campaign spending, interest group involvement, and political speech has disturbed the traditional paradigm. In the "new era," as commentators have dubbed it, judicial races routinely feature intense competition, broad public participation, and high salience.

This Article takes the new era as an opportunity to advance our understanding of …

Fighting Women: The Military, Sex, And Extrajudicial Constitutional Change, Jill Elaine Hasday

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) upheld male-only military registration, and endorsed male-only conscription and combat positions. Few cases have challenged restrictions on women's military service since Rostker, and none have reached the Supreme Court. Federal statutes continue to exclude women from military registration and draft eligibility, and military regulations still ban women from some combat positions. Yet many aspects of women's legal status in the military have changed in striking respects over the past quarter century while academic attention has focused elsewhere. Congress has eliminated statutory combat exclusions, the military has opened many combat positions to women, …

The Brand X Constitution, Richard W. Murphy

Richard W. Murphy

In recent years, the Supreme Court’s claim to be the final, definitive interpreter of the Constitution has come under sustained attack from across the political spectrum from scholars pushing for a more “popular” constitutionalism. This Article contributes to “popular constitutionalism” by deploying recent developments in the Supreme Court’s own administrative-law doctrine against it. Together, these Chevron-related developments form the Brand X model, which stands broadly for the proposition that, where an agency uses transparent, deliberative means to adopt a reasonable interpretation of a statute it administers, the courts should defer to this interpretation regardless of whether it contradicts judicial precedent. …

Politics, Police, Past And Present: Larry Kramer's The People Themselves, Christopher Tomlins

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article addresses aspects of the debate over Larry Kramer's The People Themselves and, more generally, current interest in popular constitutionalism before engaging, briefly, with the book itself. Because I find Kramer's book in general terms unexceptionable I see no particular reason to engage in the kind of lengthy critical assessment undertaken by those scholars whose disagreements with the book are pronounced. Instead I focus on three "sites" that the book traverses that I consider sites of missed opportunity. They are, first, the question of the people and the Constitution; second, the people and politics; third, the question of police …

A Discrete And Cosmopolitan Minority: The Loyalists, The Atlantic World, And The Origins Of Judicial Review, Daniel J. Hulsebosch

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Historical interest in popular constitutionalism has enlivened the search for the origins of judicial review. Several precursors of judicial review in the state courts during the 1780s, in particular, demand explanation. If early modern Anglo-Americans did not perceive courts as enforcers of constitutional limits on legislatures, what explains these attempts by judges to curtail statutes in the "critical period" before the Philadelphia Convention? This article argues that these cases involved antiloyalist legislation and related laws that violated the Peace Treaty of 1783 or the law of nations, or otherwise obstructed diplomatic and commercial relations with the other empires of the …

Give "The People" What They Want?, Keith E. Whittington

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Larry Kramer's The People Themselves argues that "popular constitutionalism" has been the dominant tradition over the course of American history, being eclipsed by "judicial supremacy" only in the last decades of the twentieth century. He posits that political parties have, since the age of Andrew Jackson, been the vehicle for pushing back the forces of judicial supremacy. This article argues that political parties are instead deeply implicated in the political dynamic that gives rise to judicial supremacy in the United States. The article identifies the features of the early party system that allowed it serve the popular constitutionalist function that …

Kramer's Popular Constitutionalism: A Quick Normative Assessment, Sarah Harding

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This paper steps outside of the historical debate about the origins and development of judicial review and focuses on the normative claim that Kramer makes near the end of Popular Constitutionalism. Should the Court, as Kramer argues, have a little more humility when it comes to judicial review and its authority over constitutional interpretation? Should the Court have more respect for legislative decision-making? These questions are addressed through a brief exploration of the ideas of a leading skeptic of judicial review, Jeremy Waldron, and a glimpse at the experiences of other rights-respecting nations.

A Historiography Of The People Themselves And Popular Constitutionalism, Morton J. Horwitz

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The People Themselves intervenes in a growing contemporary debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that began to emerge after the end of the Warren Court and reached a crescendo with Bush v. Gore. For the second time since Lochner v. New York was decided, some liberals have begun once again to switch sides on the virtues of judicial review. Many recent liberal books and articles inevitably bring to mind the flood of Progressive attacks on the democratic legitimacy of judicial review written between 1905 and 1937. Yet the book can be approached independently …

Pre-Revolutionary Popular Constitutionalism And Larry Kramer's The People Themselves, Richard J. Ross

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Larry Kramer's depiction of pre-Revolutionary constitutionalism rests on two dichotomies that are valuable yet exclude middle positions. First, he distinguishes between fundamental law and ordinary law. Second, he argues that pre-Revolutionary judges could play one of two roles—since they were not supreme constitutional interpreters (the first of these roles), they must have possessed no special authority to determine constitutional meanings (the second, and remaining, possibility). Both of these dichotomies obscure middle positions that capture important aspects of the pre-Revolutionary constitutional tradition. My comments briefly identify these middle positions and suggest what is at stake in recovering them.

Popular Constitutionalism, Judicial Supremacy, And The Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Mark A. Graber

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The complete history of the Lincoln-Douglas debates provides additional support for the main thesis of Larry Kramer's The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, while casting doubt on a subtheme. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1840 are yet another instance when judicial power was contested in American history. Professor Kramer, however, treats American constitutional history as an ongoing struggle between aristocrats who support judicial supremacy and "democrats" committed to a more popular constitutionalism. The complete Lincoln-Douglas debates suggest that political struggles to control constitutional meaning have been more protean. Douglas was one of many ambitious politicians who rose to …

Popular Constitutionalism In The Civil War: A Trial Run, Daniel W. Hamilton

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Civil War was widely recognized, at the time and since, as a moment of popular constitutionalism, at least in so far as the Supreme Court was made suddenly less powerful as an interpreter of the Constitution on the eve of the war. The Court was largely marginalized on constitutional questions during the war, in large part as a result of the Dred Scott Case, which Charles Evans Hughes described as one of the great "self-inflicted wounds" in the history of the Supreme Court.

If today, in a time of war, we look readily to the courts to ultimately delineate …

Popular Constitutionalism In The Twentieth Century: Reflections On The Dark Side, The Progressive Constitutional Imagination, And The Enduring Role Of Judicial Finality In Popular Understandings Of Popular Self-Rule, William E. Forbath

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This essay aims to revise and strengthen some important features of Larry Kramer's pioneering account of popular constitutionalism, particularly during the last century, which Kramer covers on the run. In doing so, the essay also complicates the normative path of Kramer's narrative. First, I discuss the role of racism in shaping American popular constitutionalism and its rivals. The People Themselves has been assailed for glossing over this and other dark chapters in popular constitutionalism's history. I sketch how and why Kramer's narrative should take these dark chapters on board. Next, I turn to the Progressive Era and the New Deal. …

Popular Constitutionalism As Political Law, Mark Tushnet

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The People Themselves develops the idea that constitutional law is a special kind of law, political law. Examining some of the book's reviews, this Article explains how political law can be developed through relatively unstructured interactions among the people, political leaders in Congress and the presidency, and the courts. It argues that understanding how constitutional law as political law is developed requires, not the development of crisp analytic criteria, but close historical analysis of particular interactions. The Article identifies criteria for evaluating how popular constitutionalism compares to judicial review as a mechanism for enforcing constitutional rights, arguing that a serious …

Preempting The People: The Judicial Role In Regulatory Concurrency And Its Implications For Popular Lawmaking, Theodore W. Ruger

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The phrase "popular constitutionalism" most commonly refers to the role of the public—or perhaps its elected representatives—in framing answers to particular substantive questions of constitutional interpretation. This essay explores a different aspect of the popular constitution of the United States, one that is indifferent to particular substantive questions but that forms the basic structure in which most lawmaking takes place. The United States is not merely a federal system but one with concurrent federalism, in which many issues are regulated by both state and federal governments. This norm of regulatory concurrency became entrenched in the twentieth century even as the …

Tom Delay: Popular Constitutionalist?, Neal Devins

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Focusing on congressional efforts to override state court decisionmaking in the Terri Schiavo case, this essay examines some of the practical problems associated with implementing Larry Kramer's popular constitutionalism. In particular, lawmakers will invoke the "will of the people" when, in fact, they are pursuing special interest politics. More than that, the Schiavo case calls attention to the increasing partisanship within Congress. This partisanship, contrary to the objectives of popular constitutionalism, makes lawmakers less likely to advance the national interest and more likely to focus their energies on their increasingly partisan base. For this very reason, today's Congress is less …

Popular Constitutionalism As Presidential Constitutionalism?, David L. Franklin

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This essay, which focuses on Larry Kramer's book The People Themselves, makes three points. First, although Kramer makes popular constitutionalism the conceptual centerpiece of his book, it's not at all clear what popular constitutionalism is. Kramer's work can be read to embody two very different versions of popular constitutionalism: a populist sensibility model and a departmentalist model. Second, whichever model Kramer has in mind, he has performed a valuable service by reminding us that the meaning of the Constitution is not identical to the doctrines the Supreme Court uses to implement that meaning. Third, popular constitutionalism in 2006 may in …

Constitutional Education For The People Themselves, Sheldon Nahmod

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Professor Nahmod, like Dean Kramer, remains profoundly disturbed by the Supreme Court's triumphalist decision in Bush v. Gore. However, he does not go so far as Dean Kramer in arguing normatively for a return to "popular constitutionalism." Rather, his more modest position is that the Supreme Court, Congress, and the President, together with the bar and the media, have a normative obligation to educate "the people themselves" in constitutional matters. This often-overlooked and vitally important "constitutional education" of the people is based on the self-government rationale of both our constitutional structure and the First Amendment. Professor Nahmod suggests how …

Comment: Popular Law And The Doubtful Case Rule, Frank I. Michelman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

A "doubtful case" or "clear mistake" rule is a rule calling for substantial deference by a reviewing court to a legislature's implicit affirmation of the constitutional probity of the statutes it enacts. Americans of the early Republic reportedly found a grounding for such a rule of judicial conduct in a conception of constitutional law as popular (not "ordinary") law. On examination, it proves difficult to trace a persuasive connection between the popular-law conception and demands for judicial adherence to a rule of deference to the implicit constitutional judgments of legislatures. Rather, the popular law conception calls for a kind of …

Response, Larry Kramer

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reshaping Federal Jurisdiction: Congress's Latest Challenge To Judicial Review, Helen Norton

Publications

This Article examines growing congressional interest in a specific legislative check on judicial power: controlling the types of cases judges are empowered to decide by expanding and/or contracting federal subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has recently sought to shape judicial power through a range of proposals that variously enlarge and compress federal subject matter jurisdiction. In 2004, for example, the House of Representatives voted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of the Allegiance. Just a few months later, the new 109th Congress undertook a groundbreaking expansion of federal subject …

Popular Constitutionalism In The Civil War: A Trial Run, Daniel W. Hamilton

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

A Symposium On The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism And Judicial Review; Introduction, Daniel W. Hamilton

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Against Interpretive Supremacy, Saikrishna Prakash, John Yoo

Michigan Law Review

Many constitutional scholars are obsessed with judicial review and the many questions surrounding it. One perennial favorite is whether the Constitution even authorizes judicial review. Another is whether the other branches of the federal government must obey the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and what, if anything, the other branches must do to execute the judiciary's judgments. Marbury v. Madison has been a full-employment program for many constitutional law scholars, including ourselves. Larry Kramer, the new Dean of Stanford Law School, shares this passion. He has devoted roughly the last decade of his career, with two lengthy law review …