The Role of Constitutional Features in Judicial Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-370
Author(s):  
Adam R. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
The State ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
State Constitution ◽  
American State

American state constitutions vary tremendously in their length, amendment rate, and age. These three variables—especially the first two—strongly influence the rate at which state supreme courts strike down state actions for violating the state constitution. Longer, more detailed constitutions reduce policy flexibility, increasing judicial invalidations; rarely updated constitutions may fail to address modern concerns, increasing invalidations; and recently adopted constitutions may contain fragile logrolls and similar shortcomings, also increasing invalidations. These findings add new considerations to a rich literature on judicial review in state supreme courts.

Judicial Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 31-68
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Court Case ◽  
State Laws ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Us Constitution

The conventional account of judicial review starts with a US Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison. But judicial review in truth starts with the state courts and the state constitutions, not the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution. Before the US Constitution existed, the state courts established American judicial review and were the first courts to wrestle with the complexities of exercising it. Judicial review also is foremost a structural story, not an individual-rights story. The delegation of power to the judiciary to decide the meaning of our constitutions laid the groundwork for the growth in power of American courts—especially the federal courts, which have become the go-to answer for so many who-decides questions in American government over the last seventy-five years. This chapter begins a search for insights in resolving the dilemma of judicial review by looking at how the state courts innovated the concept and the ways they initially practiced it. It shows that the early state courts were deferential to the democratic branches of government. They rarely invalidated state laws and did so only when these laws violated a clear constitutional rule. That approach offers lessons for federal and state courts alike.

scholarly journals Bibliometric Study in the Heartland: Comparative and Electronic Citation Practices of the Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio Supreme Courts (1994–2004)

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dragomir Cosanici
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
The Common ◽  
Citation Practices

AbstractThis study by Dragomir Cosanici provides a bibliometric, comparative study of the citation practices of the state supreme courts in the common law jurisdictions of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio, USA during a recent ten-year span (1994–2004). It focuses on the type of legal materials most frequently cited as authority, examining the importance of both primary and secondary sources. It specifically analyses the growing usage of electronic citations by the four supreme courts.

Redefining “Property”: The Constitutional Battle over Land Redistribution in Zimbabwe

1994 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Van Horn
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Issue ◽  
Land Redistribution ◽  
War For Independence ◽  
Robert Mugabe ◽  
Productive Land ◽  
Peasant Farmers

This article is about the appropriate role of the judiciary in the constitutional debate over land redistribution in Zimbabwe. The possession of land in Zimbabwe has been the most volatile political issue since the war for independence. White ownership of the most productive land fuelled the war against Rhodesia. A constitutional settlement in 1979 resulted in a cease-fire, but the Declaration of Rights prohibited the new government from acquiring land for resettlement purposes except on a “willing seller, willing buyer” basis. With the expiration of the decade-long entrenchment of the Declaration of Rights in 1990, President Robert Mugabe declared his intention to honour a promise made eleven years before: to resettle peasant farmers on previously white-owned land. Since then, Parliament has amended the Constitution of Zimbabwe three times to allow the state to acquire property for resettlement and to give Parliament the power to fix the amount of compensation without judicial review.

Part V State Constitutional Amendment and Revision, 14 Judicial Involvement in State Constitutional Amendment and Revision

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Williams Robert F
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
Single Subject ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Processes Of Change ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
State Constitution ◽  
Generally True

This chapter discusses the extensive judicial involvement in litigation considering the substance and procedure of state constitutional amendment and revision. Some processes of state constitutional change can only be utilized, for example, to amend the state constitution but not to revise it. This is generally true for the initiative. Litigation therefore arises over whether an initiated change is a valid amendment or an invalid revision. Also, state constitutions contain a number of procedural requirements and limitations on the processes for their change, such as single-subject and separate-vote requirements. These procedural restrictions are enforced by the courts through litigation. This level of judicial involvement in the processes of state constitutional change is unlike that at the federal level, for change does not occur very often and challenges to the federal processes of change are generally viewed as non-justiciable political questions.

State Constitution Revision: An Exercise in Federalism and Sovereignty

1988 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 9-10
Author(s):  
J. A. Myers
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
The State ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
National State ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
State Constitution ◽  
Legislative Oversight ◽  
State And Local Government ◽  
State And Local ◽  
As If

Experience with the concepts of federalism and sovereignty is usually limited to readings and lectures, especially in a class of undergraduates. Since these two concepts are the foundation of American governmental structure on all levels, I want to ensure that the students grasp them. I feel that students have a better grasp of information and its application when they can actually use the information themselves. I have developed the following exercise to explore federalism and sovereignty issues: posing a question concerning a state's revision of its constitution to the students as if they were on the state's constitution revision commission. The lively debates and discussions that ensue cover not only the main issues of sovereignty and federalism but encompass the use (and misuse) of executive power, legislative oversight, and commissions—all concepts that are critical to the study of American national, state and local government.Towards the end of a class focusing on constitutions (and after a class covering the basics of federalism), the stage is set by talking about state constitution revisions and the trend toward simpler “plain English” state constitutions. (Note: This can be adapted for county/city/town charter revisions also.) The class is told that the instructor is the governor of the State of Confusion, and they have been gathered to form the State of Confusion's Constitution Revision Commission. The first section the commission will address at the next meeting is the following:

Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. By Laura Langer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. 192p. $62.50 cloth, $20.95 paper.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 826-827
Author(s):  
Donald R. Songer
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
State University ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Almost All

Interest in strategic approaches to an understanding of judicial decision making, including the implications of the separation of powers (SOP), has grown dramatically in recent years. Unfortunately, almost all the research on these SOP interactions has been limited to those involving the U.S. Supreme Court. Laura Langer's book provides a refreshing alternative to the exclusive Supreme Court focus by examining the significance of separation of powers concerns for the exercise of judicial review by state supreme courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document