Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
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 …
Judicial Review Before Marbury, William Michael Treanor
Judicial Review Before Marbury, William Michael Treanor
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
While scholars have long probed the original understanding of judicial review and the early judicial review case law, this article presents a study of the judicial review case law in the United States before Marbury v. Madison that is dramatically more complete than prior work and that challenges previous scholarship on the original understanding of judicial review on the two most critical dimensions: how well judicial review was established at the time of the Founding and when it was exercised. Where prior work argues that judicial review was rarely exercised before Marbury (or that it was created in Marbury), …
Judicial Review Of Unenumerated Rights: Does Marbury's Holding Apply In A Post-Warren Court World?, John C. Eastman
Judicial Review Of Unenumerated Rights: Does Marbury's Holding Apply In A Post-Warren Court World?, John C. Eastman
John C. Eastman
Prepared to commemmorate the bicentennial of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison, this article explores the limits of the original holding, its expansive interpretation in the 20th Century to claims of judicial supremacy, even exclusiveness, in constitutional interpretation, and the various theories that would support such claims. The article explores in some detail the particularly troubling claim of judicial power to create new, unenumerated rights when the Court itself has rejected the foundational, natural rights principles that would lend legitimacy to the enterprise.