John Dinan

America's Jeffersonian experiment : remaking state constitutions, 1820-1850

-- Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, friends and fellow statesman, had radically different views about constitutionalism. While Madison worried that public tampering would after the security of rights, Jefferson recommended subjecting constitutions and their embedded principles to regular popular scrutiny. In the post-founding generation, a period when the people first considered themselves part of a democratic republic, Americans joined together to rewrite their state constitutions, documents whose purpose was in the Jeffersonian manner, to empower the people.Through careful analysis of hundreds of speeches for and against the greater empowerment of ordinary citizens, Scalia examines constitutional reform in seven states: Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Ohio, and Iowa. While reflecting the countrys geographical, political economic, and social diversity, these states demonstrate a surprising unity in republican ideology.Exploring the wider implications about the nature of liberalism, Scalia shows how these state constitutional not only remade that states but also expressed careful deliberation about citizenship, popular sovereignty, individual rights, and Americas political identity. Americas Jeffersonian Experiment will appeal to those readers interested in politics, the early. American republic, constitutional history and law, liberalism, and republicanism.

The U.S. Supreme Court and Federalism in the Twenty-first Century:

This article analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s record in twenty-first-century federalism cases and compares these rulings with rulings issued in the late twentieth century, a time when the Court was aggressive in invalidating federal acts on federalism grounds and reluctant to limit state authority when reviewing state acts. The twenty-first-century Court has displayed a continued willingness to enforce limits on federal power when reviewing federal statutes but has been less willing than in recent years to sustain state laws with an eye to preserving state autonomy.

Convergence and divergence in state political behavior, 1970–2004

Abstract In view of the ongoing debate about the degree and direction of political polarization in the U.S., we assess whether the 50 states are converging or diverging in their behavior in state and federal elections. We find that states are diverging in their behavior in federal elections but converging in their behavior in state elections. Previous scholars have shown the need to distinguish between the degree of polarization of elites and ordinary citizens. Our findings demonstrate the further need to distinguish between trends in partisan polarization at the federal and state level.

The Pardon Power and the American State Constitutional Tradition

Although the exercise of the presidential pardon power has sparked periodic controversies and generated various reform proposals in recent decades, the original Hamiltonian conception of the power-grounded in a preference for vesting clemency exclusively in the executive and keeping it as unfettered as possiblehas gone virtually unchallenged at the federal level. At the state level, however, where the exercise of gubernatorial pardons has been no less controversial, constitution-makers have had numerous opportunities to reconsider the wisdom of the Hamiltonian model and to experiment with alternative arrangements. Through a study of the relevant state constitutional convention debates during the past two centuries, it becomes clear that state constitution-makers have frequently rejected the Hamiltonian model, insofar as they have provided for the participation of various officials other than the executive in the pardoning process and insofar as they have imposed various restrictions on the exercise of the power. An analysis of these convention debates can serve not only to illuminate the logic underlying the distinctive conceptions of the pardon power that have prevailed in a number of states, but also to inform contemporary assessments of various reform proposals at the federal level.