Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (20)
- Supreme Court of the United States (17)
- Courts (9)
- Judges (5)
- Jurisprudence (5)
-
- Comparative and Foreign Law (3)
- Fourteenth Amendment (3)
- Legal Writing and Research (3)
- Legislation (3)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (2)
- Legal History (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal Biography (1)
- Military, War, and Peace (1)
- National Security Law (1)
- Religion Law (1)
- Rule of Law (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 23 of 23
Full-Text Articles in Law
Against Interpretive Supremacy, Saikrishna Prakash, John Yoo
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 …
Foreword: A Silk Purse?, John T. Noonan Jr.
Foreword: A Silk Purse?, John T. Noonan Jr.
Michigan Law Review
On March 2, 1801, President John Adams appointed forty-two persons to be justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. John Marshall, doubling as Secretary of State as well as Chief Justice, failed to deliver the commissions. Adams's term expired. James Madison, Marshall's successor as Secretary of State, withheld seventeen of the commissions. In 1802, William Marbury and three other appointees to this minor office brought mandamus against Madison in the Supreme Court. Madison was ordered to show cause why the writ should not issue. Congress abolished the June sitting of the Court. Only in 1803 was the case …
Legislating Chevron, Elizabeth Garrett
Legislating Chevron, Elizabeth Garrett
Michigan Law Review
One of the most significant administrative law cases, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, lnc., is routinely referred to as the "counter-Marbury." The reference suggests that Chevron's command to courts to defer to certain reasonable agency interpretations of statutes is superficially an uneasy fit with the declaration in Marbury v. Madison that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." According to the consensus view, Chevron deference is consistent with Marbury, as long as Congress has delegated to agencies the power to make policy by interpreting ambiguous statutory language or filling …
Comparative Constitutionalism In A New Key, Paul W. Kahn
Comparative Constitutionalism In A New Key, Paul W. Kahn
Michigan Law Review
Law is a symbolic system that structures the political imagination. The "rule of law" is a shorthand expression for a cultural practice that constructs a particular understanding of time and space, of subjects and groups, as well as of authority and legitimacy. It is a way of projecting, maintaining, and discovering meaning in the world of historical events and political possibilities. The rule of law - as opposed to the techniques of lawyering - is not the possession of lawyers. It is a characterization of the polity, which operates both descriptively and normatively in public perception. Ours, we believe, is …
The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen
The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen
Michigan Law Review
Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional. As …
Why Europe Rejected American Judicial Review - And Why It May Not Matter, Alec Stone Sweet
Why Europe Rejected American Judicial Review - And Why It May Not Matter, Alec Stone Sweet
Michigan Law Review
In this Article, I explore the question of why constitutional review, but not American judicial review, spread across Europe. I will also argue that, despite obvious organic differences between the American and European systems of review, there is an increasing convergence in how review actually operates. I proceed as follows. In Part I, I examine the debate on establishing judicial review in Europe, focusing on the French. In Parts II and III, I contrast the European and the American models of review, and briefly discuss why the Kelsenian constitutional court diffused across Europe. In Part IV, I argue that despite …
Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark Tushnet
Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark Tushnet
Michigan Law Review
The invention in the late twentieth century of what I call weak-form systems of judicial review provides us with the chance to see in a new light some traditional debates within U.S. constitutional law and theory, which are predicated on the fact that the United States has strong-form judicial review. Strong- and weak-form systems operate on the level of constitutional design, in the sense that their characteristics are specified in constitutional documents or in deep-rooted constitutional traditions. After sketching the differences between strong- and weak-form systems, I turn to design features that operate at the next lower level. Here legislatures …
Judging The Next Emergency: Judicial Review And Individual Rights In Times Of Crisis, David Cole
Judging The Next Emergency: Judicial Review And Individual Rights In Times Of Crisis, David Cole
Michigan Law Review
As virtually every law student who studies Marbury v. Madison learns, Chief Justice John Marshall's tactical genius was to establish judicial review in a case where the result could not be challenged. As a technical matter, Marbury lost, and the executive branch won. As furious as President Jefferson reportedly was with the decision, there was nothing he could do about it, for there was no mandate to defy. The Court's decision offered no remedy for Marbury himself, whose rights were directly at issue, and whose rights the Court found had indeed been violated. But over time, it became clear that …
If History Mattered: John Marshall And Reframing The Constitution, Aviam Soifer
If History Mattered: John Marshall And Reframing The Constitution, Aviam Soifer
Michigan Law Review
What more can there be to learn about John Marshall? We have been blessed recently with a flood of fine books about Marshall and the Supreme Court over which he presided from 1801 until 1835. We also now have readily available an impressive collection of documents concerning the Court before Marshall, as well as a fine series collecting, introducing, and annotating Marshall's papers. With recent bicentennial celebrations marking the beginning of Marshall's career as Chief Justice and the anniversary of Marbury v. Madison, an outpouring of law review articles and scholarly symposia have offered learned exchanges about the great Chief …
Interpretation And Institutions, Cass R. Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule
Interpretation And Institutions, Cass R. Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule
Michigan Law Review
Suppose that a statute, enacted several decades ago, bans the introduction of any color additive in food if that additive "causes cancer" in human beings or animals. Suppose that new technologies, able to detect low-level carcinogens, have shown that many potential additives cause cancer, even though the statistical risk is often tiny - akin to the risk of eating two peanuts with governmentally-permitted levels of aflatoxins. Suppose, finally, that a company seeks to introduce a certain color additive into food, acknowledging that the additive causes cancer, but urging that the risk is infinitesimal, and that if the statutory barrier were …
Dissing Congress, Ruth Colker, James J. Brudney
Dissing Congress, Ruth Colker, James J. Brudney
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist's recent leadership has invalidated numerous federal laws, arguably departing from settled precedent to do so. The Rehnquist Court has held that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in five instances during the 2000-01 Term, on four occasions during the 1999-2000 Term and in a total of twenty-nine cases since the 1994-95 Term. Commentators typically explain these decisions in federalism terms, focusing on the Court's use of its power to protect the States from an overreaching Congress. That explanation is incomplete and, in important respects, unpersuasive. The Rehnquist Court has not been as solicitous of …
How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian
How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian
Michigan Law Review
Learned commentators have called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA" or "the Act") "perhaps the most unconstitutional statute in the history of the nation" and "the most egregious violation of the separation of powers doctrine in American constitutional history." In the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court struck down the Act in its applications to state and local governments, declaring that "RFRA contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance." The Act's applications to federal law, however, survived Boerne, which means that plaintiffs with religious freedom claims against …
Losing Faith: America Without Judicial Review?, Erwin Chemerinsky
Losing Faith: America Without Judicial Review?, Erwin Chemerinsky
Michigan Law Review
In the last decade, it has become increasingly trendy to question whether the Supreme Court and constitutional judicial review really can make a difference. Gerald Rosenberg, for example, in The Hollow Hope, expressly questions whether judicial review achieves effective social change. Similarly, Michael Klarman explores whether the Supreme Court's desegregation decisions were effective, except insofar as they produced a right-wing backlash that induced action to desegregate. In Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Mark Tushnet approvingly invokes these arguments (pp. 137, 145), but he goes much further. Professor Tushnet contends that, on balance, constitutional judicial review is harmful. He …
The Democracy-Forcing Constitution, Neal Devins
The Democracy-Forcing Constitution, Neal Devins
Michigan Law Review
During my freshman year in college, I was told not to judge a book by its cover. The book in question - Lolita; the cover suggested something quite salacious. My professor explained that a soldier, who had purchased Lolita to work out some of the kinks of military life, found himself tossing the book out, proclaiming in disgust "Literature!" Well, I cannot claim precisely the same reaction to Cass Sunstein's One Case at a Time (my expectations were lower than the soldier's). Nevertheless, for those expecting a lefty defense of judicial restraint, One Case at a Time is not your …
Pure Politics, Girardeau A. Spann
Pure Politics, Girardeau A. Spann
Michigan Law Review
Part I of this article considers the impact that judicial discretion has on the traditional model of judicial review, and that model's reliance on the Supreme Court as the primary guardian of minority interests. Part II argues that the interests of racial minorities can be better advanced through the ordinary political process than through the process of Supreme Court adjudication. Part Ill emphasizes that minority participation in Supreme Court proceedings cannot ultimately be avoided and, accordingly, suggests a political model of the Court that minorities can use in an effort to neutralize the Court's distortion of the political process. Part …
Original Intent: "With Friends Like These…", Thomas Gibbs Gee
Original Intent: "With Friends Like These…", Thomas Gibbs Gee
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Original Intent and the Framer's Constitution by Leonard W. Levy
Hyneman: The Supreme Court On Trial, William W. Van Alstyne
Hyneman: The Supreme Court On Trial, William W. Van Alstyne
Michigan Law Review
A Review of The Supreme Court on Trial. By Charles S. Hyneman
Review Of The Supreme Court On Trial, By C. S. Hyneman., Jerold H. Israel
Review Of The Supreme Court On Trial, By C. S. Hyneman., Jerold H. Israel
Reviews
Professor Hyneman's book represents still another entry in the current debate over the proper role of judicial review in a democratic society.' Although he approaches this subject via an analysis of several recent attacks upon the United States Supreme Court, Professor Hyneman essentially deals with the same topics-the legitimacy of judicial review, the proper standards applicable to constitutional adjudication, and the alleged departure of the school segregation cases2 from those standards-that have served as the subject of several books and at least a score of articles published within the past five years.3 Indeed the writing in this area has grown …
The Steel Seizure Case: Congress, The President And The Supreme Court, Paul G. Kauper
The Steel Seizure Case: Congress, The President And The Supreme Court, Paul G. Kauper
Michigan Law Review
Questions relating to the legislative authority of Congress and of the several states have given rise to an immense mass of constitutional litigation ever since the time that the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison asserted its power of judicial review. Many of these cases have turned on the division of legislative authority between Congress and the state legislatures under our federal system. Yet within this same span of time relatively few cases have arisen to challenge the assertions of presidential power, and in only a few instances has the Court found occasion to speak at length on the questions …
Marbury V Madison And The Doctrine Of Judical Review, Edward S. Corwin
Marbury V Madison And The Doctrine Of Judical Review, Edward S. Corwin
Michigan Law Review
What is the exact legal basis of the power of the Supreme Court to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress? Recent literature on the subject reveals a considerable variety of opinion. There are radicals who hold that the power owes its existence to an act of sheer usurpation by the Supreme Court itself, in the decision of Marbury v. Madison. There are conservatives who point to clauses of the Constitution which, they assure us, specifically confer the power. There are legists who refuse to go back of Marbury v. Madison, content in the ratification which, they assert, subsequent …
Historical Lights From Judicial Decisions, Edward Cahill
Historical Lights From Judicial Decisions, Edward Cahill
Michigan Law Review
The history of a nation is to be looked for in a great variety of places. Its traditions, its public and private records, its religious and social orders, its literature and its laws, each yield copious results to the researches of the historian. The social, religious and economic conditions of a nation at any period of its history, the state of the· domestic relations, the rights of property and of succession, the growth of personal liberty, all these and many more find their accurate expression sooner or later, in the written or unwritten laws of the land. And the movement …
Supreme Court And Unconstitutional Acts Of Congress, Edwin S. Corwin
Supreme Court And Unconstitutional Acts Of Congress, Edwin S. Corwin
Michigan Law Review
The power of the Supreme Court of the United States to supervise Congressional legislation has been so generally assumed in the recent discussions, both in and out of Congress, of the proposed Rate Bill, and is indeed so apparently settled today that it becomes of interest to inquire into the intention of the Constitutional Fathers in this matter. Did the Fathers intend that the federal judiciary should have the right to declare an act of Congress of no effect because transgressing constitutional limits? It does not detract from the interest of this question that two recent authorities who attempt to …
Some Checks And Balances In Government, Thomas M. Cooley
Some Checks And Balances In Government, Thomas M. Cooley
Articles
The purpose of the present paper is not to discuss the broad general subject of checks and balances in this, or any other, government. but to call attention to a few considerations only. These, in the main, affect the executive and the judiciary, rather than the legislature; and they will serve to show, perhaps, that neither of them can always, and under all circumstances, rely upon any very sure protection to its legitimate powers. It is one thing, unfortunately, to put intricate machinery in motion, and another, and quite a different, thing, to make it, under unforeseen occurrences, work out …