Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Article III (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional departmentalism (1)
- Constitutional departmentalists (1)
-
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional interpretive authority (1)
- Election law (1)
- Executive branch (1)
- Fairness (1)
- John locke (1)
- Judicial branch (1)
- Judicial independence (1)
- Judicial power (1)
- Judicial supremacists (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Legislative branch (1)
- Marsy's law (1)
- Omnibus packages (1)
- Politics (1)
- Popular sovereignty (1)
- President (1)
- Procedural election laws (1)
- Revolution principle (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- State elections (1)
- Statewide ballots (1)
- Supreme court (1)
- Transparency (1)
- Voter protection (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Don't Change The Subject: How State Election Laws Can Nullify Ballot Questions, Cole Gordner
Don't Change The Subject: How State Election Laws Can Nullify Ballot Questions, Cole Gordner
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Procedural election laws regulate the conduct of state elections and provide for greater transparency and fairness in statewide ballots. These laws ensure that the public votes separately on incongruous bills and protects the electorate from uncertainties contained in omnibus packages. As demonstrated by a slew of recent court cases, however, interest groups that are opposed to the objective of a ballot question are utilizing these election laws with greater frequency either to prevent a state electorate from voting on an initiative or to overturn a ballot question that was already decided in the initiative’s favor. This practice is subverting the …
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, …