Law Commons^™

Outlaw Blues, Suzanna Sherry

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law by Mark Tushnet

Judicial Review And American Democracy, Stanley S. Sokul

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Judicial Review and American Democracy by Albert P. Melone and George Mace

The Shadow Of Natural Rights, Or A Guide From The Perplexed, Hadley Arkes

Michigan Law Review

A Review of American Constitutional Interpretation by Walter Murphy, James Fleming and William Harris, II

The Believer And The Powers That Are, Elizabeth Ferguson

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Believer and the Powers That Are by John T. Noonan, Jr.

The Role Of The Legislative And Executive Branches In Interpreting The Constitution, Robert Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Comments On Commercial Speech, Constitutionalism, Collective Choice, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

A Preface To Constitutional Theory, David B. Lyons

Faculty Scholarship

We have a plethora of theories about judicial review, including theories about theories, but their foundations require stricter scrutiny. This Essay presents some aspects of the problem through an examination of two important and familiar ideas about judicial review.

The controversy over "noninterpretive" review concerns the propriety of courts' deciding constitutional cases by using extraconstitutional norms. But the theoretical framework has not been well developed and appears to raise the wrong questions about judicial review. Thayer's doctrine of extreme judicial deference to the legislature has received much attention, but his reasoning has been given less careful notice. Thayer's rule rests …

Ventriloquism And The Verbal Icon: A Comment On Professor Hogg's "The Charter And American Theories Of Interpretation", Richard F. Devlin Frsc

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In this brief comment I offer some critical reflections on Professor Hogg's proposed approach to Charter interpretation. I suggest that Professor Hogg's attempt to legitimize and constrain judicial review is an exercise in confession and avoidance. On the one hand, he admits that "interpretivism" is explanatorily inadequate, yet on the other he refuses to accept "non-interpretivism" for he realizes that it has the potential to unmask the politics of law. I argue that Hogg's third way - that Charter interpretation should be progressive and purposive - is incapable of bearing the legitimizing weight which he requires in that it necessitates …

Toleration And The Constitution, Judith L. Hudson

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Toleration and the Constitution by David A.J. Richards

The Rise Of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation To Judge-Made Law, Ward A. Greenberg

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law by Christopher Wolfe

Why The Reagan Administration Resists Radical Transformation Of The Constitution, Gary C. Leedes

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Conscience And Natural Rights: A Reply To Professor Jaffa, Bruce Ledewitz

Seattle University Law Review

This Article replies to Professor Harry V. Jaffa’s article “What Were the ‘Original Intentions’ of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States?” The Article focuses on the gap the author argues Professor Jaffa left between the consciousness of the Framers and the practice of judicial review today. The author argues that the understanding that Professor Jaffa brings to the intent of the Framers is one that opens up the Constitution to the call of justice, but the author critiques the utility of Professor Jaffa’s work in resolving the contentious constitutional issues of today, including abortion and capital punishment.

Foreword: On Jaffa, Lincoln, Marshall, And Original Intent, Lewis E. Lehrman

Seattle University Law Review

This Foreword introduces the article to follow written by Harry V. Jaffa, scholar of Abraham Lincoln’s political philosophy. The Foreward provides background material necessary to contextualize the ongoing debate surrounding constitutional interpretation emphasizing original intent addressed in Jaffa's article.

Professor Harry V. Jaffa Divides The House: A Respectful Protest And A Defense Brief, Robert L. Stone

Seattle University Law Review

This Article replies to Professor’ Jaffa’s article, “What Were the ‘Original Intentions’ of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States?,” and book, The Crisis of the House Divided. The Article argues that Professor Jaffa’s method throughout his indictment of legal scholars has three flaws. First, the Article argues that Professor Jaffa takes statements of sensible political compromises-such as support for judicial restraint, British traditions, and local self-government-and treats them as if they were philosophical statements. Second, the author contends that Professor Jaffa assembles a composite indictment, which in law is appropriately applied only to an indictment against …

What Were The "Original Intentions" Of The Framers Of The Constitution Of The United States?, Harry V. Jaffa

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explains how the doctrine of original intent might be defended as the basis for interpreting the Constitution. The deepest political differences in American history have always been differences concerning the meaning of the Constitution, whether as originally intended, or as amended. Since the Civil War, the debate has often taken the form of a dispute over whether or not the Civil War amendments, notably the fourteenth, have changed the way in which the whole Constitution, and not only the amended parts, is read or interpreted. It is not possible to even discuss how or whether the Civil War …

Seven Questions For Professor Jaffa, George Anastaplo

Seattle University Law Review

This Article poses questions inspired by the four essays collected in Professor Harry V. Jaffa’s article “What Were the ‘Original Intentions’ of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States?” The Article offers, in addition to fresh reflections upon these questions, three appendices, which bear upon various matters touched upon by Professor Jaffa. These appendices include, “The Founders of Our Founders: Jerusalem, Athens, and the American Constitution,” “The Ambiguity of Justice in Plato’s Republic,” and “Private Rights and Public Law: The Founders’ Perspective.” The Epilogue provides informed observations of a scholar who comments on the differences between Professor …

Rationalism In Constitutional Law, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

A Comment On Democratic Constitutionalism, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Fish V. Zapp: The Case Of The Relatively Autonomous Self, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Disestablished Religion In Pennsylvania And Kentucky: A Study In Constitutional Interpretation, Kenneth S. Gallant

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constructing A Constitution: 'Orginal Intention' In The Slave Cases, James Boyd White

Other Publications

The question how our Constitution is to be interpreted is a living one for us today, both in the scholarly and in the political domains. Professors argue about "interpretivism" and "originalism" in law journals, they study hermeneutics and deconstruction to determine whether or not interpretation is possible at all, and if so on what premises, and they struggle to create theories that will tell us both what we do in fact and what we ought to do. Politicians and public figures (including Attorney General Edwin Meese) talk in the newspapers and elsewhere about the authority of the "original intention of …

Constitutional Decisions And The Supreme Law, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

What status do Supreme Court decisions have for officials in the political branches of our government? Six months ago, Attorney General Edwin Meese III rekindled controversy over this enduring and troublesome question when he claimed in a widely reported lecture that Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution are not the supreme law of the land, and are properly subject to forms of opposition by other governmental officials. The general reaction to the speech was that it was meant to reduce the perceived authority of Supreme Court opinions, and a close reading of the speech certainly leaves this impression. Yet, even …

The Rise And Fall Of The "Doctrine" Of Separation Of Powers, Philip B. Kurland

Michigan Law Review

As the Constitution of the United States nears its two hundredth anniversary, there is a frenzy of celebration. However awesome the accomplishment, I submit that it is no slander to recognize that the 1787 document was born of prudent compromise rather than principle, that it derived more from experience than from doctrine, and that it was received with an ambivalence in no small part attributable to its ambiguities. Indeed, its most stalwart supporters doubted its capacity for a long life. It should not be surprising, then, that even today there is disagreement over whether the Constitution of 1787 is now …

Hyperspace, Girardeau A. Spann

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy by John Agresto

The Constitution As Mirror: Tribe's Constitutional Choices, Richard A. Posner

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Constitutional Choices by Laurence H. Tribe

Liberalism And American Constitutional Law, Eric Brunstad

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Liberalism and American Constitutional Law by Rogers M. Smith

Comment On Professor Van Alstyne's Paper, Henry P. Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

My major difficulty with Professor Van Alstyne's paper is its incomplete character. In the end, he makes only two points: first, judges are authorized to apply "this Constitution," not to do justice; and second, judges should not lie about what they are doing. The danger is that after a while the first point sounds somewhat empty, while the actual content of the second point seems entirely parasitic on the first.

On What The Constitution Means, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A Review of On What the Constitution Means by Sotirios A. Barber

Book Review, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Heart Of The Lawyer's Craft, Peter R. Teachout

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.