YET ANOTHER LOOK AT THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE PHENOMENON OF ‘WE THE PEOPLE’

  • Svetislava M. Bulajić

Apstrakt

American constitutional scholars are unremittingly exploring their country’s Constitution, as they are still deeply at odds on how the judges should seek out to discern the meaning of the solemn document. This article thus aspires to cast yet another look at the U.S. constitutionalism and constitutional theory of interpretation, so as to re-examine the institution of judicial law-making in our divisive political times, albeit not from the standpoint of ‘hot’ topics – one being the imminent impeachment procedure – but rather from the standpoint of the constitutional framework, its origin and legitimacy, most notably the Constitution’ Preamble and its intrinsic ‘We the People’ phenomenon (People’s Constitution for the People). Over the past years, these topics have enjoyed a major resurrection, primarily due to their association to a larger issue, namely fidelity to the law of the Constitution.

Reference

Ackerman, B. 2019. Revolutionary Constitutions: Charismatic Leadership and the Rule of Law. Belknap Press, Harvard University Press.

Aharon, B. 2002. Foreword: a Judge on Judging: The Role of the Supreme Court in a Democracy. Harvard Law Review, Faculty Scholarship Series, 116(16), pp. 19-162.

Balkin, J. 1997. Agreements with Hell and Other Objects of Our Faith. Fordham Law Review, 65, pp. 1703-1738.

Berger, R. 1997. Reflections on Constitutional Interpretation. BYU Law Review, 3, pp. 517-536.

Bobbitt, P. 1991. Constitutional Interpretation. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing.

Bork, R. 1984. Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press.

Bork, R. 1990. The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. New York.

Breyer, S. 2010. Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View. New York, Vintage.

Brown, K. 2013. “We The People”, Constitutional Accountability, and Outsourcing Government- Indiana Law Journal, 88(4), pp.1347-1403.

Brown, R. 1993. Tradition and Insight. Yale Law Journal, 103, pp. 177-222.

Cardozo, B. 1921. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven:Yale University Press.

Cicero, De Offices.

Gordon, R. 1997. Foreword: On the critical Use of History: The Arrival of Critical Historicism. Stanford Law Revue, 49(5), pp.1023-1029.

Greenawalt, K. 1975. Discretion and Judicial Decision: The Elusive Quest for the Fetters that Bind Judges, Columbia Law Review, 75(2), pp.359-399.

Hamilton, A., Madison J., & Jay J. 2001. The Federalist (The Gideon edition). George W. Carey & James McClellan (eds). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Kahn, P. 1999. The Cultural Study of Law: Reconstructing Legal Scholarship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. xiv-432.

MacKinnon, C. 1991, Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law, Yale Law Journal, Vol.100, No.5, Centennial Issue, 1281, pp.1281-1328.

Meese, E. 1986, Speech to the American Bar Association, Washington D.C. (held on July 9, 1985), in The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution 9 (Federal Society ed.).

Michelman, F. 1998, Brennan and Democracy: The 1996-1997 Brennan Center Symposium Lecture, California Law Review, No. 86, pp. 399-529.

Nelson, W. 1987, History and Neutrality in Constitutional Adjudication. Virginia Law Review, Vol.72, p. 1246.

Patenam, C. 1998. The Sexual Contract. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Powell, H.J. 1985. The Original Understanding of Original Intent. Harvard Law Review, 98(5), pp. 885-948.

Rakove, J. 1996. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, New York, Alfred A. Knopf ed., 1996.

Scalia, A. 1989, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 57, pp. 849-865.

Sunstein, C. 1995, Five Thesis of Originalism, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol.19, p. 311-315.

Williams, R. 2010, The One and Only Substantive Due Process Clause, Yale Law Journal, Vol.120, Issue 3, pp.408-516.

Wooten, H. 2008. Speech: Living in the Law. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 32(1), pp. 198-201.

Williams R. 2012, Substantive Due Process in Historical Context, Cato Unbound, A Journal of debate. Available at: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/02/10/ryan-williams/substantive-due-process-historical-context, last visited 28 October 2019.

Madison, J. 1787. Madison’s Notes of Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, in: John C. Payne’s Copy of James Madison’s Original Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress). Available at: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mjm.28_0270_1617/, last visited 28 October 2019.

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry v. United States (295 U.S. 495 (1935)).

James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 549 (1991), Scalia, L., concurring

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S.45 (1905)

Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803))

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17. U.S. 316, 407 (1819)

S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 221 (1917), Holmes, J., dissenting

United States v. Lopez (514. U.S. 549 (1995)

United States v. Morrison (529 U.S. 598 (2000).
Objavljeno
2020-02-19
Sekcija
Pregledni naučni rad