Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
That Elusive Consensus: The Historiographic Significance Of William E. Nelson's Works On Judicial Review, Mark Mcgarvie
That Elusive Consensus: The Historiographic Significance Of William E. Nelson's Works On Judicial Review, Mark Mcgarvie
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This essay provides a historiographical context for Nelson’s work on judicial review. It argues that Nelson’s integration of intellectual and legal history not only rebutted the instrumentalist historiography that prevailed when he undertook his work on Marshall and judicial review, but also fostered an appreciation of the need to place legal actors in the intellectual context in which they acted. Highlighting the influence of Bernard Bailyn’s pathfinding work on popular sovereignty upon Nelson’s development of his consensus theory, the essay contends that Nelson’s work changed the course of academic readings of Marshall’s jurisprudence to be consistent with a broader acceptance …
Justice White And Judicial Review, Philip J. Weiser
Justice White And Judicial Review, Philip J. Weiser
Publications
No abstract provided.
Who Was William Marbury?, David F. Forte
Who Was William Marbury?, David F. Forte
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
Of all the disappointed office seekers in American history, only William Marbury has been so honored as to have his portrait hung in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court alongside that of James Madison. The two titular protagonists to the Marbury v. Madison dispute had no idea that their original contretemps would ever find its way to litigation, let alone eventual mythic significance as the foundation stone of judicial review.
Justice Jackson And The Judicial Function, Paul A. Weidner
Justice Jackson And The Judicial Function, Paul A. Weidner
Michigan Law Review
Much of the pattern of division in the present Supreme Court is traceable to basic differences of opinion regarding the proper role of a judge in the process of constitutional adjudication. Some students of the Court, yielding to the current fashion of reducing even intricate problems to capsule terms, have tried to explain the controversy by classifying the justices as either "liberals" or "conservatives." A second school poses the disagreement largely in terms of judicial "activism" as opposed to judicial "restraint." It is this view that has the greater relevance for the present discussion. C.H. Pritchett, one of the leading …