Constitutional Law facts, information, pictures. The articles under this heading deal with the major substantive concerns of American constitutional law. For broader aspects of these topics see. Judicial process; Judiciary; Public law. A guide to related articles appears under. Law. I. Herman Pritchett. BIBLIOGRAPHYII. Distribution of Powers. John P. Civil Liberties. Robert G. Mc. Closkey. BIBLIOGRAPHYIV. Konvitz. BIBLIOGRAPHYConstitutional law is law derived from, related to, or interpretive of a constitution. The term may in fact be used synonymously with constitution, since the function of a constitution is to provide the basic law for a governmental regime. But it is more common, at least in governments with written constitutions, for the term constitution to refer to the actual text of the basic document, while constitutional law connotes the constitution as interpreted and applied by the organs of government and as elaborated and rationalized by scholarly commentators. Every regime must have an organizational framework, an agreed division of responsibilities among public instrumentalities, and a system of definitions of individual rights and status in the community. In a traditional society these arrangements and understandings are established by custom, but in more modern societies they are subject, through a process of conscious choice, to determination or revision by the policy- making institutions of government. These determinations have, since the adoption of the American and French constitutions toward the close of the eighteenth century, generally been codified in a comprehensive written document that has status superior to ordinary statute law and that can be amended only by a special legislative procedure. In England, however, it has proved possible to proceed on into the twentieth century without any systematic codification of the rules of the political system. Constitutional law in England consequently cannot be clearly distinguished from other public law, since it has no superior legal authority; and any constitutional practice, even the most fundamental, can be overridden or revised by act of Parliament. A treatise on English constitutional law is simply a treatment of all the written and unwritten law generally considered essential to the operation of the governmental system. Where, as is now generally the case, a written constitutional instrument is in existence, constitutional law is a formal category of law defined by the scope and provisions of the document. NNDB has added thousands of bibliographies for people, organizations, schools, and general topics, listing more than 50,000 books and 120,000 other kinds of. Any matter covered in the constitution, even arrangements of slight general importance, takes on the stature of constitutional law. Conversely, matters not covered in the constitution, no matter how important. Some constitutional language is so specific that little interpretation is required, as, for example, the provision that the U. S. An important part of this function falls to the executive branch, which must inevitably and continually interpret the constitution in making decisions on the use of executive power. The language of the constitution left it unclear whether it was the . Isabella I of Castile, depicted in the painting Virgen de la mosca at The Collegiate church of Santa Mar Katharine Olivia Mary Packe (n. Current 50 State Flags of the United States of America - Part Two (N thru W) - In Alphabetical Order - Not Order of Admission -. Get information, facts, and pictures about Constitutional Law at Encyclopedia.com. Make research projects and school reports about Constitutional Law easy with. The peplum film (pepla plural), also known as sword-and-sandal, is a genre of largely Italian-made historical or Biblical epics (costume dramas) that dominated the. This important constitutional question had to be determined by the then vice- president, John Tyler, who, after some initial hesitation, decided that he was actually president and not simply vice- president acting as president. This view was quickly accepted as the constitutional law on presidential succession. Congress also must continuously construe the constitution as a guide to action. For example, the constitution authorizes the president to make treaties, . Washington had no choice but to withdraw, yielding to the Senate's interpretation of . In fact, it was argued by many during the early years of the American republic that each branch of government should be the authoritative interpreter of all those provisions dealing with its own status and powers. However, this tripartite theory of constitutional interpretation was strongly challenged by Justice Marshall in the 1. Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 1. In the Marbury case the Supreme Court declined to enforce a statute duly enacted by Congress because, as Marshall interpreted the act, it was contrary to the constitution. The judicial power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional is not explicitly stated in the constitution, and the argument as to whether the drafters intended the Court to have such power has never been entirely settled. Some of the major battles of American politics have resulted from legislative or executive resistance to the Court's interpretations, and notable efforts have been made to deny the supremacy of judicial views on constitutional interpretation. Both Andrew Jackson in his veto of the Bank Bill in 1. Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address took this position. In spite of such opposition, the Supreme Court's qualifications to act as pre- eminent interpreter of the constitution have been generally accepted. The Court has minimized resistance to its role by adopting rules of self- restraint, which keep it from passing on certain constitutional questions of a . It has seldom asserted a constitutional position that challenged a dominant popular opinion, although there have been such . President Roosevelt was unable to get through Congress legislation authorizing him to appoint additional justices who would support the New Deal; but in 1. Court itself reversed its position, thus terminating the dispute. Two decades later the Court's constitutional views again became the center of controversy, primarily on the issue of racial segregation in the public schools, but also on certain national security issues in 1. The enormous prestige of the United States Supreme Court has helped to popularize judicial review of legislation and judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation. Prior to World War II it was primarily in federal systems within the British Commonwealth. Supreme Court were found. However, following World War II constitutional courts were established in West Germany, Italy, India, and elsewhere. Principles of interpretation. Wherever the process of constitutional interpretation goes on, it must be guided by some more or less articulate theory about the extraction of meaning from constitutional language. The interpreter cannot merely insist that the constitution means whatever he wants it to mean, or at least he cannot admit such an approach to the interpretative process. For the essence of constitutional purpose is to establish a degree of certainty, to impose limitations that will affect all alike, and to give effect to rules that are external to the value system of the interpreter. Various approaches to the establishment of stable constitutional meanings have been proposed. First, it may be contended that the constitution should mean what its framers meant it to mean. In the United States it is a rare constitutional debate in which someone does not appeal to . In the case of some provisions, the purpose of the drafters may seem reasonably clear from the language of the document or the historical data. But generally this is not true. Constitutional language is always the product of group effort and compromise and may be deliberately chosen to bridge over differences of opinion. The intentions involved are the intentions of many individuals who participated to a greater or lesser degree and at various stages in the process of constitutional draftsmanship and subsequent ratification. The proceedings of the Constitutional Convention are known largely through the incomplete notes taken by James Madison. Some of the men who participated in drafting the constitution were in wide disagreement about its intention within a few years. Because individual and group intentions are difficult to determine, a second theory of constitutional interpretation proposes concentration on word meanings. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, . This method employs somewhat narrower lexicographic skills as compared with the social historicism on which the first method relies. It is more rigorously confined by the document itself and more closely related to the processes by which the written instruments of private law are construed. An alternative to these two basically historical methods of determining constitutional meaning is the approach of logical analysis, which was heavily used by Chief Justice Marshall in his great decisions. Madison, for example, Marshall cites no judicial decisions to support his arguments and, although referring to . His argument is primarily an exercise in logic. The Supreme Court has taken an oath to uphold the constitution. The conclusion logically follows that when an act of Congress conflicts with the superior law, the Supreme Court cannot enforce it, but must declare it null and void. This position has been so long accepted that the logic supporting it may seem unassailable. But it is equally logical to argue that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and since the president has taken an oath to support the constitution he cannot enforce a Supreme Court decision that conflicts with the constitution, but must declare it null and void. The problem is simply not one to which logic can guarantee a correct answer. The limitations on the contribution of logic can be made clearer by stating a part of Marshall's argument as a syllogism. Major premise: A law repugnant to the constitution is void. Minor premise: This law is repugnant to the constitution. Conclusion: This law is void. Assuming the validity of the major premise, the soundness of the conclusion depends upon whether the minor premise is factually true. But logic cannot tell us whether a particular law is repugnant to the constitution. That is a matter of informed opinion and judgment. Justice Holmes, in one of his most famous passages from The Common Law (. Mark Damon - IMDb Edit. In 1. 96. 0, he co- starred in an unsold pilot for an action series based on the adventures of a U. S. Marine Corps intelligence unit called, .
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |