Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Constitutional Law
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.
This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …
Equity In American And Jewish Law, Itzchak E. Kornfeld , Ph.D.
Equity In American And Jewish Law, Itzchak E. Kornfeld , Ph.D.
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Indian Removal Act: Jackson, Sovereignty And Executive Will, Daniele Celano
The Indian Removal Act: Jackson, Sovereignty And Executive Will, Daniele Celano
The Purdue Historian
From King Andrew I to Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson had no shortage of nicknames symbolic of the opposing opinions of the president responsible for the forced removal of all Native peoples from the American South. While on its face the Indian Removal Act of 1830 appears to be little more than a racist executive order purporting large-scale land theft, the Act was also a manifestation of executive power and competing constitutional interpretations of sovereignty. In using his presidential authority to demand Indian removal, Jackson not only restructured national Indian policy, but further challenged both the power balance between state and …
Religiosity In Constitutions And The Status Of Minority Rights, Brandy G. Robinson
Religiosity In Constitutions And The Status Of Minority Rights, Brandy G. Robinson
Cultural Encounters, Conflicts, and Resolutions
Minority rights and religion have never been topics that are simultaneously considered. However, arguably, the two have relevance, especially when combined with the topic and theory of constitutionalism. Historically and traditionally, minorities have been granted certain rights and have been denied certain rights under various constitutions. These grants and denials relate to cultural differences and values, arguably relating to a culture’s understanding and interpretation of religion.
This article explores the relationship and status of minority rights as it relates to religiosity and constitutionalism. Essentially, there is a correlation between these topics and research shows where certain nations have used religion …
A Brief Research On 1936 Soviet Constitution Under Joseph Stalin, Jingyuan Qian
A Brief Research On 1936 Soviet Constitution Under Joseph Stalin, Jingyuan Qian
The Macalester Review
The mission of this paper is to examine the Soviet Union's first constitution in 1936. It attempts to analyze how the social and economic conditions presented in USSR, as well as the personality of Joseph Stalin, stimulated the need to make a constitution. It also attempts to evaluate the influence of this constitution in the contemporary Soviet Society. I would like to thank Prof. Weisensel for his kind review and precious suggestions on this research paper.
A Machine Made Of Words: Our Incompletely Theorized Constitution, Gregory Brazeal
A Machine Made Of Words: Our Incompletely Theorized Constitution, Gregory Brazeal
The University of New Hampshire Law Review
[Excerpt]”Many scholars have observed that the Constitution of the United States can be understood as an example of what Cass Sunstein calls an “incompletely theorized agreement.” The Constitution contains a number of extremely general terms, such as “liberty,” “necessary and proper,” and “due process.” The Framers of the Constitution, it is suggested, did not attempt to specify precisely how each of these principles would operate in every case. On this view, the Constitution is incompletely theorized in the sense of representing “a comfortable and even emphatic agreement on a general principle, accompanied by sharp disagreement about particular cases.” For example, …