The Legal Context

Author(s):  
Rickie Solinger

Why are reproductive issues governed variously by state laws, federal laws, and court decisions? The United States Constitution created a governing system known as federalism, under which the states and the national government share powers. The Constitution is specific about which powers the...

Author(s):  
David S. Schwartz

Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1819 decision in McCulloch v. Maryland is widely regarded as the greatest constitutional decision ever issued by the Supreme Court. The ruling upheld Congress’s constitutional power to create the Second Bank of the United States, recognizing the “implied powers” of Congress and the supremacy of federal over state laws. Modern constitutional scholars believe that McCulloch established the constitutional foundation for the historic expansion of federal authority in the wake of the New Deal. But the nationalizing potential of McCulloch has not been fully realized. Only briefly in the mid-twentieth century did the Court embrace the full extent of McCulloch’s vision of implied powers, as it upheld broad federal laws regulating the economy and promoting racial equality. McCulloch’s 200-year odyssey, from 1819 to the present day, helps us understand how the “spirit” of the Constitution and its structure of federalism have been reinterpreted throughout U.S. constitutional history.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Albert

Scholars of comparative constitutional law would suggest that the United States Constitution is the world’s most difficult democratic constitution to change by formal amendment. This article suggests that the Constitution of Canada may be even harder to amend. Canadian constitutional politics have proven the textual requirements for major constitutional amendment so far impossible to satisfy. But the extraordinary difficulty of formal amendment in Canada derives equally from sources external to the text. Major constitutional amendment also requires conformity with extra-textual requirements imposed by Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution of Canada, parliamentary and provincial as well as territorial statutes, and arguably also by constitutional conventions — additional rules that may well make major constitutional amendment impossible today in Canada. These as yet underappreciated extra-textual sources of formal amendment difficulty raise important questions for Canadian constitutionalism, namely whether in making the Constitution virtually impossible to amend they weaken democracy and undermine the purpose of writtenness.


1986 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Palmer

The United States Constitution established a federal system, not a national government. States continued necessarily and by design as active and important centers of governmental activity. States were institutions of inherent authority, while the federal government by original intent and then explicitly by amendment, was a government of only delegated powers. Since the federal government derived its power directly from the people and acted directly on individuals, it was decisively more powerful than the pre-Constitution Confederation. But the Bill of Rights itself is evidence of the continued worry, pervasive until modified by the Reconstruction Amendments, that the federal government might, but should not, overwhelm the states.


2020 ◽  
Vol III (I) ◽  
pp. 39-51
Author(s):  
Rida Saeed

A researcher wants to study the role of media of Pakistan in freedom of speech of Lahore district. Each individual has some inborn basic rights, which he and she enjoys no matter, where, he and she lives or what his and her material or social status is, the ability to freedom speech and expression is one of those rights. As said by Newseum, in 1997 that "Freedom of speech is guaranteed, and protected by the first amendment, of the United-States constitution". Connotations, of the freedom of speech have a varied, in different eras of history. There are parts of bills of rights in 1st amendment forbids national, government from restricting freedom of expression, in this article the author looks into the phenomenon of 'Freedom of Speech' within Lahore.


Author(s):  
David S. Schwartz

McCulloch v. Maryland is widely regarded as the greatest constitutional decision ever issued by the United States Supreme Court. Written in 1819 by Chief Justice John Marshall, the ruling upheld Congress’s constitutional power to create the Second Bank of the United States, recognizing the “implied powers” of Congress and the supremacy of federal over state laws. Modern constitutional scholars believe that McCulloch established the constitutional foundation for the historic expansion of federal authority in the wake of the New Deal. But The Spirit of the Constitution argues that the nationalizing potential of McCulloch has not been fully realized. Rather than establishing broad federal legislative power, McCulloch was virtually ignored for its first fifty years. Even Marshall shrank from the full nationalist reach of his own decision. When the late-nineteenth-century Supreme Court finally recognized McCulloch as a “great case,” the Court cited it more frequently when exercising judicial review to limit the powers of Congress rather than to expand them, striking down federal laws in the name of states’ rights and reserved state powers under the Tenth Amendment. Only briefly in the mid-twentieth century did the Court nearly embrace the full extent of McCulloch’s vision of implied powers, as it upheld broad federal laws regulating the economy and promoting racial equality. McCulloch’s 200-year odyssey, from 1819 to the present day, helps us understand how the “spirit” of the Constitution, and its structure of federalism, have been reinterpreted again and again throughout the eras of U.S. constitutional history.


ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Turner

AbstractIn its landmark decision in Obergefell v Hodges a five-Justice majority of the United States Supreme Court held that state laws depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Four dissenting Justices - Chief Justice John G Roberts, Jr and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr - criticized the majority’s ruling and analysis. Calling for judicial self-restraint and deference to the outcomes of democratic decision-making, the dissenters argued that same-sex marriage bans enacted by state legislatures did not violate the Constitution. This essay argues and demonstrates that the Obergefell dissenters have not restrained themselves in other cases in which they voted to strike down legislative enactments and did not defer to democratic decision-making. This selective restraint reveals that the dissenters have not been unwaveringly committed to judicial self-restraint, and raises the central question of when should the Court defer to legislatures in cases presenting constitutional challenges to state or federal laws.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 276-284
Author(s):  
William J. Jefferson

The United States Supreme Court declared in 1976 that deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain…proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. It matters not whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with treatment once prescribed—adequate prisoner medical care is required by the United States Constitution. My incarceration for four years at the Oakdale Satellite Prison Camp, a chronic health care level camp, gives me the perspective to challenge the generally promoted claim of the Bureau of Federal Prisons that it provides decent medical care by competent and caring medical practitioners to chronically unhealthy elderly prisoners. The same observation, to a slightly lesser extent, could be made with respect to deficiencies in the delivery of health care to prisoners of all ages, as it is all significantly deficient in access, competencies, courtesies and treatments extended by prison health care providers at every level of care, without regard to age. However, the frailer the prisoner, the more dangerous these health care deficiencies are to his health and, therefore, I believe, warrant separate attention. This paper uses first-hand experiences of elderly prisoners to dismantle the tale that prisoner healthcare meets constitutional standards.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document