Philip B. Kurland

Toward a Political Supreme Court

Obviously the Supreme Court is more than the nine individuals gowned in black and ensconced in the marble palace in Washington. Like the Presidency and the Congress, the Court must be viewed as an institution separate and apart from those who temporarily occupy the offices. It is important to examine the Courts actions and to evaluate its use of power not just for today. Like Mlaitland, one must take a deep account of yesterday in order that today not paralyze tomorrow. The ardent advocates of enhancement of presidential power when John F. Kennedy occupied the White House seem to have lost most of their ardor during the more recent tenures of Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Those prepared to have the congressional role in foreign affairs and the Senates power to review treaty commitments bypassed for more efficient methods have begun to recognize the values inherent in such checks on the executive will, as the Viet Nam tragedy becomes ever more tragic. And, now, with a radical change of personnel on the Supreme Court already begun, there must be at least some advocates of judicial power prepared to think in more institutional terms. For, just as the power flowing to the national government from the states became irreversible at some point in our history; just as the accretion of executive authority and the reduction of legislative authority has become intractable; so, too, the authority that the Court might assert-and the manner of its assertion-could become fixed for use by Justices who succeed those who first utilize it. I do not mean that these trends cannot be reversed. Certainly they can, but only at the cost of weathering a constitutional crisis with all its correlative consequences and dangers. The proper question about the Court today-before the crisis is upon us-is not whether we should reverse the flow of authority, but whether it should be slowed or speeded. The question is whether the essential

The Business of the Supreme Court, O.T. 1982

For at least the past decade, the workload of the Supreme Court of the United States has been too great to dispatch efficiently and thoughtfully within an annual term. Ten years ago, almost everyone except the Justices themselves agreed that there was a serious problem. (The Court, of course, was divided.) The only question was what, if anything, should be done about it. Today, the Court is virtually united, but only in recognizing the existence of a problem. At the conclusion of October Term 1981, seven Justices-speaking individually and extrajudicially-certified that they had too much to do each year to perform at a level that the profession and the country are entitled to expect. But the question remained, what to do? Before any debate-if there is to be a serious debate and not simply an annual end-of-term amusement on the op-ed pages-focuses exclusively on remedies, it is necessary to look more carefully at the problems. The right answer depends on the right question. Too often, the Court and its critics define the problems in terms of numbers: too many petitions for certiorari,

The Rise and Fall of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers

As the Constitution of the United States nears its two hundredth anniversary, there is a frenzy of celebration. However awesome the accomplishment, I submit that it is no slander to recognize that the 1787 document was born of prudent compromise rather than principle, that it derived more from experience than from doctrine, and that it was received with an ambivalence in no small part attributable to its ambiguities. Indeed, its most stalwart supporters doubted its capacity for a long life. It should not be surprising, then, that even today there is disagreement over whether the Constitution of 1787 is now merely an artifact of late eighteenth-century American history or a vade mecum which has, in fact, controlled the allocation of government powers and the restraints on those powers throughout the two centuries since its birth.

The Supreme Court Review 1961

New updated! The latest book from a very famous author finally comes out. Book of the supreme court review 1960, as an amazing reference becomes what you need to get. Whats for is this book? Are you still thinking for what the book is? Well, this is what you probably will get. You should have made proper choices for your better life. Book, as a source that may involve the facts, opinion, literature, religion, and many others are the great friends to join with.

The Impotence of Reticence

The difficult national problems which have focused around the presidency in this election year have created renewed interest in theories of presidential power. In this article the author reviews the gravitation of power from the legislative to the executive branch, and, through an institutional analysis, discusses the difficulties created by the shift in balance. The conclusion is reached that rejuvenation of congressional authority is a prerequisite to the continuance of a free and stable American government.-Ed.

The Judicial Road to Social Welfare

This article examines the role of the judiciary in the last fifty years in the development of social welfare. The author concludes that there is no likely judicial road to social welfare reform. The courts have not found in the Constitution a right to social welfare. Their role has been, and will probably continue to be, limited to ensuring that social welfare legislation is fairly interpreted and applied.

Religion and the Law: Of Church and State and the Supreme Court

Need an excellent electronic book? religion and the law of church and state and the supreme court by , the most effective one! Wan na get it? Locate this excellent e-book by here currently. Download and install or review online is available. Why we are the best site for downloading this religion and the law of church and state and the supreme court Naturally, you can select guide in different documents kinds and also media. Try to find ppt, txt, pdf, word, rar, zip, as well as kindle? Why not? Get them below, currently!