Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Aspirational Constitution, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Firmly embedded in every theory of judicial decisionmaking lies an important set of assumptions about the way government is supposed to work. Sometimes these theories about government are made explicit. More often they are not. Moreover, deeply embedded in every theory of government is a theory of human nature. Although these assumptions about human nature generally remain latent within the larger theory, because they provide the underpinnings for our ideas about the way government is supposed to work, they drive our notions about judicial decisionmaking. For example, the theory of government reflected in the United States Constitution reveals what one …

Three Mistakes About Interpretation, Paul Campos

Publications

No abstract provided.

Progressive Free Speech And The Uneasy Case For Campus Hate Codes, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court As Constitutional Interpreter: Chronology Without History, Herbert Hovenkamp

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888-1986 by David P. Currie

Quasi-Constitutional Law: Clear Statement Rules As Constitu, William N. Eskridge, Jr., Philip P. Frickey

Vanderbilt Law Review

In one of the most celebrated law review articles of all time, Karl Llewellyn argued that the traditional canons of statutory construction are not reliable guides to predicting judicial interpretations, because for every canon supporting one interpretation there is a counter-canon cutting against that interpretation. He accomplished his tour de force in large part by focusing upon the "referential" canons-rules referring the Court to an outside or preexisting source to determine statutory meaning'-and upon the "linguistic" canons-general conventions of language, grammar, and syntax. Llewellyn did not explore in any detail the "substantive" canons, the clear statement rules or presumptions of …

Constitutional Scepticism, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Interpretive constitutional debate over the last few decades has centered on two apparently linked questions: whether the Constitution can be given a determinate meaning, and whether the institution of judicial review can be justified within the basic assumptions of liberalism. Two groups of scholars have generated answers to these questions. The "constitutional faithful" argue that meaning can indeed be determinately affixed to constitutional clauses, by reference to the plain meaning of the document, the original intent of the drafters, evolving political and moral norms of the community, or the best political or moral philosophical theory available and that, because of …

Judicial Power And Reform Politics: The Anatomy Of Lochner V. New York, Charles A. Beineman

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Judicial Power and Reform Politics: The Anatomy of Lochner v. New York. By Paul Kens

What's In A Name? The Constitutionality Of Multiple "Supreme" Courts, David E. Engdahl

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment, Burt Neuborne

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Images Of A Constitution, B. L. Strayer

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

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

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Original Intent and the Framer's Constitution by Leonard W. Levy

Political Consensus, Constitutional Formulae, And The Rationale For Judicial Review, Martin H. Redish

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Constitutional Cultures; The Mentality and Consequences of Judicial Review by Robert Nagel

A Prior Restraint By Any Other Name: The Judicial Response To Media Challenges Of Gag Orders Directed At Trial Participants, René L. Todd

Michigan Law Review

Gag orders directed at trial participants do not directly intrude into the media's editorial process, but instead result in a reduction of the total communication available regarding trial proceedings. In this way, participant-directed gag orders are effective, albeit indirect, restraints upon the media. This Note examines the dynamics of these participant-directed restrictions and their consequent effect upon the media. Part I examines participant-directed gag orders in relation to traditional prior restraint doctrine. After discussing the history of prior restraint doctrine and the present standard of prior restraint analysis, Part I relates efforts by courts to apply. prior restraint doctrine to …

Political Pressure And Judging In Constitutional Cases, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Meeting The Enemy, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

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

Outlaw Blues, Suzanna Sherry

Michigan Law Review

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

Choosing Judges The Democratic Way, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

A generation ago, the pressing question in constitutional law was the countermajoritarian difficulty.' Americans insisted their government was a democratic republic and took that to mean rule by a majority of elected representatives in various offices and bodies, federal and local. Yet courts whose members had not won election presumed to override the actions of executive and legislative officers who had. The conventional answer to this apparent paradox was the Constitution, which arguably owed its existence to the people directly. Judicial review was justified, accordingly, when court decisions were rooted firmly in the particular text, structure, or historical backdrop of …

Political Law, Legalistic Politics: A Recent History Of The Political Question Doctrine, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

In The Beginning: The Washington Supreme Court A Century Ago, Charles H. Sheldon, Michael Stohr-Gillmore

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will discuss (1) the politics that influenced the drafting of the judicial article (article IV) in the constitutional convention; (2) the election of the first five members of the bench and the backgrounds of those inaugural judges; (3) the particular approach toward judicial review adopted by these five jurists (activism-restraint); and (4) the personal relations among these members of the supreme court. This Article will provide a personal perspective of the first five judges and their court.

Review Of Red, White, And Blue: A Critical Analysis Of Constitutional Law By Mark Tushnet, David B. Lyons

Faculty Scholarship

Mark Tushnet's new book offers no such counsel. Mainly a critique of interpretative theories, its conclusions are profoundly skeptical. Tushnet's central claim is that judicial review and constitutional theory cannot possibly perform their assigned functions, and that liberalism is to blame. This review will focus on those facets of the book.

Constitutional Arguments: Interpretation And Legitimacy In Canadian Constitutional Thought, Joel C. Bakan

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

The author provides an analysis and critique of the various types of arguments advanced by Canadian constitutional jurists to establish formal grounds for the legitimacy of judicial review under the Canadian constitution. He demonstrates how two variables - constitutional truth and trust in the judiciary - are relied upon in past and contemporary debates about constitutional adjudication to construct four different types of argument about the legitimacy of judicial review. Each of these types of argument is then criticized in the context of recent Charter decisions. It is argued that none of them can sustain the burden of legitimating judicial …

Judicial Conscience And Natural Rights: A Reply To Professor Ledewitz, Harry V. Jaffa

Seattle University Law Review

In our Spring 1987 issue, Professor Jaffa authored an essay in which he posited that the fundamental principles of equality and other tenets of natural law expressed in the Declaration of Independence were originally intended to be the principles of the Constitution of 1787 Professor Jaffa asserted that while the Framers believed in the "law of nature and nature's God," many contemporary constitutional thinkers, including fellow conservatives Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Attorney General Edwin Meese, do not. Thus, Jaffa argued, those conservatives "who today most aggressively appeal to the doctrine of original intent are among its most resolute antagonists." …

The Most Effective Or Least Restrictive Alternative As The Only Intermediate And Only Means-Focused Review In Due Process And Equal Protection, Roy G. Spece Jr.

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Toward A General Theory Of The Establishment Clause, Daniel O. Conkle

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

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

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 …

Stare Decisis And Constitutional Adjudication, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Despite endless literature urging that constitutional adjudication be severed from explorations into the understandings at the creation of the Constitution, original understanding continues to play a prominent role in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. For the Court, originalism seemingly provides a legitimate ground for decisionmaking; for the people, it provides assurances against judicial usurpation of power properly belonging to other branches of government, or retained by the people themselves.

But difficulties with originalism emerge once the existing constitutional order is actually examined. The Supreme Court's repeated invocations of the Framers' understanding notwithstanding, a significant portion of our constitutional order cannot reasonably …