Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (6)
- Legal history (5)
- U.S. Supreme Court case (5)
- Federal power (3)
- Federalism (3)
-
- Fourteenth Amendment (3)
- Necessary and Proper Clause (3)
- Taney Court (3)
- Constitutionality (2)
- Enumerated power (2)
- Implied federal powers (2)
- Implied powers (2)
- National power (2)
- Reconstruction Amendments (2)
- States rights (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- Thirteenth Amendment (2)
- Tucker's rule (2)
- U.S. Constitution (2)
- Arkansas regulations (1)
- Bank Recharter Bill (1)
- Bank Veto Message (1)
- Banned categories (1)
- Chief Justice John Marshall (1)
- Compact theory (1)
- Consent of the governed (1)
- Constitutional history (1)
- Constitutional pedagogy (1)
- Constitutional powers (1)
- Constitutional rights (1)
Articles 1 - 17 of 17
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Dead Men Tell No Tales: Arkansas’S Grave Failure To Honor Its Constituents’ Postmortem Quasi-Property Right, Mckenna Moore
Dead Men Tell No Tales: Arkansas’S Grave Failure To Honor Its Constituents’ Postmortem Quasi-Property Right, Mckenna Moore
Arkansas Law Review
It is doubtful that Hulon Rupert Austin woke up on the day of March 7, 1986 and expected it to be his last. March 7 was a typical day—a workday—that started with a simple drive to a job site with his co-worker. A day that began so unremarkably ended with his co-worker looking up from where he was working to see “Austin lying on the ground.”
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Mark Killenbeck’s Korematsu v. United States has important affinities with Dred Scott v. Sandford. Both decisions by promoting and justifying white supremacy far beyond what was absolutely mandated by the constitutional text merit their uncontroversial inclusion in the anticanon of American constitutional law.3 Dred Scott held that former slaves and their descendants could not be citizens of the United States and that Congress could not ban slavery in American territories acquired after the Constitution was ratified.5 Korematsu held that the military could exclude all Japanese Americans from portions of the West Coast during World War II.6 Both decisions nevertheless provided …
Greenbacks, Consent, And Unwritten Amendments, John M. Bickers
Greenbacks, Consent, And Unwritten Amendments, John M. Bickers
Arkansas Law Review
I remember a German farmer expressing as much in a few words as the whole subject requires: “money is money, and paper is paper.”—All the invention of man cannot make them otherwise. The alchymist may cease his labours, and the hunter after the philosopher’s stone go to rest, if paper cannot be metamorphosed into gold and silver, or made to answer the same purpose in all cases. Every day Americans spend paper money, using it as legal tender. Yet the Constitution makes no mention of this phenomenon. Indeed, it clearly prevents the states from having the authority to make paper …
Burying Mcculloch?, David S. Schwartz
Burying Mcculloch?, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
Kurt Lash is a superb constitutional historian trapped inside the body of an originalist. He is one of the few originalists bold enough to acknowledge that McCulloch v. Maryland needs to be ejected from the (conservative) originalist canon of great constitutional cases. While he attributes to me an intention “not to praise the mythological McCulloch, but to bury it,” it is Lash who seeks to bury McCulloch, which he views as a fraudulent “story of our constitutional origins.”
Mcculloch V. Madison: John Marshall's Effort To Bury Madisonian Federalism, Kurt Lash
Mcculloch V. Madison: John Marshall's Effort To Bury Madisonian Federalism, Kurt Lash
Arkansas Law Review
In his engaging and provocative new book, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, David S. Schwartz challenges McCulloch’s canonical status as a foundation stone in the building of American constitutional law. According to Schwartz, the fortunes of McCulloch ebbed and flowed depending on the politics of the day and the ideological commitments of Supreme Court justices. Judicial reliance on the case might disappear for a generation only to suddenly reappear in the next. If McCulloch v. Maryland enjoys pride of place in contemporary courses on constitutional law, Schwartz argues, then this …
What Is "Appropriate" Legislation?: Mcculloch V. Maryland And The Redundancy Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Franita Tolson
What Is "Appropriate" Legislation?: Mcculloch V. Maryland And The Redundancy Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Franita Tolson
Arkansas Law Review
I am thankful for the opportunity to review Professor David Schwartz’s really thoughtful and incisive critique of McCulloch v. Maryland. The book is a creative and masterful reinterpretation of a decision that I thought I knew well, but I learned a lot of new and interesting facts about McCulloch and the (sometimes frosty) reception that the decision has received over the course of the last two centuries. Professor Schwartz persuasively argues that modern views of McCulloch as a straightforward nationalist decision that has always had a storied place in the American constitutional tradition are flat-out wrong. The Spirit of the …
Mcculloch And The American Regime, Mark A. Graber
Mcculloch And The American Regime, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Professor David S. Schwartz’s magnificent The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland explicitly challenges how we teach government powers in first weeks or semester of constitutional law and implicitly challenges how we teach civil rights and liberties in later weeks or second semester of constitutional law. Contrary to the impression given in many classes on the constitutional law of national powers, no straight line exists from the Marshall opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland to the New Deal and beyond. Schwartz meticulously details how, for two-hundred years, different aspects of McCulloch have been …
Marshalling Mcculloch, Richard Primus
Marshalling Mcculloch, Richard Primus
Arkansas Law Review
David Schwartz’s terrific new book is subtitled John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland. But the book is about much more than Marshall and McCulloch. It’s bout the long struggle over the scope of national power. Marshall and McCulloch are characters in the story, but the story isn’t centrally about them. Indeed, an important part of Schwartz’s narrative is that McCulloch has mattered relatively little in that struggle, except as a protean symbol.
Does Importance Equal Greatness? Reflections On John Marshall And Mcculloch V. Maryland, Sanford Levinson
Does Importance Equal Greatness? Reflections On John Marshall And Mcculloch V. Maryland, Sanford Levinson
Arkansas Law Review
David S. Schwartz’s The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, is a truly excellent book, for which I was happy to contribute the following blurb appearing on the back jacket: "David Schwartz has written an indispensable study of thesingle most important Supreme Court case in the canon. As such, he delineates not only the meaning and importance of the case in 1819, but also the use made of it over the next two centuries as it became a central myth and symbol of the very meaning of American constitutionalism.”
Mcculloch's "Perpetually Arising" Questions, David S. Schwartz
Mcculloch's "Perpetually Arising" Questions, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
I’m truly honored to have my book be the subject of a symposium on Balkinization, and I’m deeply grateful to Jack Balkin and John Mikhail for organizing and hosting it. Among its many gratifications for me personally, the symposium guaranteed that at least eight people would read the book. That these readers have engaged with it so closely and insightfully is icing on the cake. My first article on McCulloch four years ago, which became the basis for a couple of the early chapters in the book, insisted that McCulloch was properly interpreted as far less nationalistic than we were …
Scholarship In Review: A Response To David S. Schwartz's The Spirit Of The Constitution: John Marshall And The 200-Year Odyssey Of Mcculloch V. Maryland, Law Review Editors
Scholarship In Review: A Response To David S. Schwartz's The Spirit Of The Constitution: John Marshall And The 200-Year Odyssey Of Mcculloch V. Maryland, Law Review Editors
Arkansas Law Review
We are elated to introduce, and the Arkansas Law Review is honored to publish, this series discussing and applauding David S. Schwartz’s new book: The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland. Schwartz sets forth meticulous research, coupled with unparalleled insight, into the opinion penned by Chief Justice John Marshall and details the winding path Marshall’s words have traveled over the past 200 years. Schwartz argues that the shifting interpretations of McCulloch, often shaped to satisfy the needs of the time, echoes the true spirit of the Constitution.
Freedom Of Expression Within The Schoolhouse Gate, Justin Driver
Freedom Of Expression Within The Schoolhouse Gate, Justin Driver
Arkansas Law Review
In the late 1960s, the Supreme Court began contemplating how the First Amendment’s commitment to “the freedom of speech” should protect the right of students to introduce their own ideas into the schoolhouse. This constitutional question extended well beyond the matter addressed in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, because that opinion—momentous though it was—held simply that students could refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But Barnette did not establish that students possessed an affirmative right to advance their own opinions, on topics of their own selection, much less in the face of school officials’ objections. The …
Defying Mcculloch? Jackson’S Bank Veto Reconsidered, David S. Schwartz
Defying Mcculloch? Jackson’S Bank Veto Reconsidered, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
On July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued the most famous and controversial veto in United States history. The bill in question was “to modify and continue” the 1816 “act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States. This was to recharter of the Second Bank of the United States whose constitutionality was famously upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland. The bill was passed by Congress and presented to Jackson on July 4. Six days later, Jackson vetoed the bill. Jackson’s veto mortally wounded the Second Bank, which would forever close its doors four years later at the …
Overruling Mcculloch?, Mark A. Graber
Overruling Mcculloch?, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Daniel Webster warned Whig associates in 1841 that the Supreme Court would likely declare unconstitutional the national bank bill that Henry Clay was pushing through the Congress. This claim was probably based on inside information. Webster was a close association of Justice Joseph Story. The justices at this time frequently leaked word to their political allies of judicial sentiments on the issues of the day. Even if Webster lacked first-hand knowledge of how the Taney Court would probably rule in a case raising the constitutionality of the national bank, the personnel on that tribunal provided strong grounds for Whig pessimism. …
M'Culloch In Context, Mark R. Killenbeck
M'Culloch In Context, Mark R. Killenbeck
Arkansas Law Review
M’Culloch v. Maryland is rightly regarded as a landmark opinion, one that affirmed the ability of Congress to exercise implied powers, articulated a rule of deference to Congressional judgments about whether given legislative actions were in fact “necessary,” and limited the ability of the states to impair or restrict the operations of the federal government. Most scholarly discussions of the case and its legacy emphasize these aspects of the decision. Less common are attempts to place M’Culloch within the ebb and flow of the Marshall Court and the political and social realities of the time. So, for example, very few …
The Confusing Language Of Mcculloch V. Maryland: Did Marshall Really Know What He Was Doing (Or Meant)?, Sanford Levinson
The Confusing Language Of Mcculloch V. Maryland: Did Marshall Really Know What He Was Doing (Or Meant)?, Sanford Levinson
Arkansas Law Review
All legal “interpretation” involves confrontation with inherently indeterminate language. I have distinguished in my own work between what I call the Constitution of Settlement and the Constitution of Conversation. The former includes those aspects of the Constitution that do indeed seem devoid of interpretive challenge, such as the unfortunate assignment of two senators to each state or the specification of the terms of office of representatives, senators, and presidents. I am quite happy to concede that “two,” “four,” and “six” have determinate meaning, though my concession is not based on a fancy theory of linguistics. It is, rather, a recognition …
Mcculloch At 200, David S. Schwartz
Mcculloch At 200, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
March 6, 2019 marked the 200th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s issuance of its decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, upholding the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States, the successor to Alexander Hamilton’s national bank. McCulloch v. Maryland involved a constitutional challenge by the Second Bank of the United States to a Maryland tax on the banknotes issued by the Bank’s Baltimore branch. The tax was probably designed to raise the Second Bank’s cost of issuing loans and thereby disadvantage it relative to Maryland’s own state-chartered banks. Marshall’s opinion famously rejected the Jeffersonian strict-constructionist argument that implied powers …