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)
- Executive branch (1)
- John locke (1)
- Judicial branch (1)
- Judicial independence (1)
- Judicial power (1)
- Judicial supremacists (1)
- Legislative branch (1)
- Politics (1)
- Popular sovereignty (1)
- President (1)
- Revolution principle (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- Supreme court (1)
- Texas Constitution (1)
- Texas Constitution of 1876 (1)
- Texas Constitution ratification (1)
- Texas Constitution theories (1)
- Texas Constitution versions (1)
- Texas history (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
There Is Only One Texas Constitution, Joshua Morrow
There Is Only One Texas Constitution, Joshua Morrow
St. Mary's Law Journal
The pre-ratification text of the Texas Constitution appeared throughout the state in conflicting English-and foreign-language copies. Some commentators argue that it is impossible to know which copy the people ratified, or even that Texas does not have a constitution. These arguments create theoretical problems, because courts interpreting the constitution assume that it consists of fixed and determinable text. And the principle of popular sovereignty precludes denying that the constitution exists. The conflicting copies also create practical problems. Are the legislature’s acts void for failing to include a Spanish-language enacting clause? May the state imprison citizens for debt, since the German …
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, …