scholarly journals Explaining the Riddle of America: What Europeans Should Know about Madisonian Democracy

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-268
Author(s):  
Laurence E. Lynn
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Political Crises ◽  
The People ◽  
Equal Importance

Long a puzzle to both its admirers and detractors across the world, the United States of America has, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, become more puzzling than ever. A variety of explanations has been proposed for America’s paradoxical combination of apparent “statelessness” and its capability to produce positive policy outcomes. This essay will argue that, properly understood, the structural features of America’s constitutional scheme of governance, largely credited to founder James Madison, provide a necessary but insufficient explanation of the “riddle of America”. The success of America’s “compound republic” (in Madison’s words), was intended to depend not only on the capacities of its basic governing structures – separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and pluralism – but, in extremis, on the inherent fairness of “the people”, both of which have been achieved in American history but neither of which can be guaranteed. The source of authority and, of equal importance, the legitimacy of American governing institutions and their outcomes is the faith placed in them by citizens, elected officials, and judges, requiring a sense of responsibility on the part of all to the principles that protect all. That the sense of responsibility on the part of some, as America’s recent political crises demonstrates, can fail, jeopardizes not only domestic liberty and justice but threatens the well being of peoples far distant.

scholarly journals An Attack on the Separation of Powers? Strategic Climate Litigation in the Eyes of U.S. Judges

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 8335
Author(s):  
Jasmina Nedevska
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Climate Politics ◽  
The Social ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Research Plan

Climate change litigation has emerged as a powerful tool as societies steer towards sustainable development. Although the litigation mainly takes place in domestic courts, the implications can be seen as global as specific climate rulings influence courts across national borders. However, while the phenomenon of judicialization is well-known in the social sciences, relatively few have studied issues of legitimacy that arise as climate politics move into courts. A comparatively large part of climate cases have appeared in the United States. This article presents a research plan for a study of judges’ opinions and dissents in the United States, regarding the justiciability of strategic climate cases. The purpose is to empirically study how judges navigate a perceived normative conflict—between the litigation and an overarching ideal of separation of powers—in a system marked by checks and balances.

Introduction The Birth and Growth of Judicial Review: 1607–2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Charismatic Leadership ◽  
The United States ◽  
Boundary Line ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Third

This introductory chapter discusses how judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation has usually emerged historically for a combination of four reasons. First, judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation is a response to a nation’s need for an umpire to resolve federalism or separation of powers boundary line disputes. The second main cause of the origins and growth of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation is what can be called the rights from wrongs hypothesis; judicial review very often emerges as a response to an abominable deprivation of human rights. The third major cause is the out-and-out borrowing of the institution of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation from either the United States’ model; the German Civil Law model; and, most recently, from the Canadian Second Look judicial review constitutional model. The fourth major cause is the existence of a system of checks and balances, which gives Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts political space to grow in. Revolutionary charismatic constitutionalism can also lead to the growth of judicial review as Professor Bruce Ackerman has explained in an important new book, REVOLUTIONARY CONSTITUTIONS: CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP AND THE RULE OF LAW (2019).

The Constitution of the Roman Republic

2020 ◽  
pp. 47-84
Author(s):  
Eric A. Posner
Keyword(s):  
Roman Republic ◽  
Agency Theory ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Political ◽  
American Constitution ◽  
Political Class ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Military Forces ◽  
The People ◽  
Governmental Functions

The constitution of the Roman Republic featured a system of checks and balances that would eventually influence the American founders, yet it was very different from the system of separation of powers that the founders created. The Roman senate gave advice but did not legislate; the people voted directly on bills and appointments in popular assemblies; and a group of magistrates, led by a pair of consuls, proposed bills, brought prosecutions, served as judges, led military forces, and performed other governmental functions. This chapter analyzes the Roman constitution from the perspective of agency theory, and argues that the extensive checks and balances, which were intended to prevent the recurrence of monarchy, may have gone too far. Suitable for an earlier period in which the population was small and the political class was homogenous, the constitution proved unworkable when Rome acquired a vast, diverse empire. The lessons of Roman constitutionalism for the American constitution are also discussed.

Mapping coronavirus research: quantitative and visualization approaches

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayaz Ahmad Loan ◽  
Ufaira Yaseen Shah
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Collaborative Networks ◽  
Authorship Pattern ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The People ◽  
Health And Well Being ◽  
The Web

PurposeThe present study aims to measure the global research landscape on coronavirus indexed in the Web of Science from 1989 to 2020. The study examines growth rates, authorship trends, institutional productivity, collaborative networks and prominent authors, institutions and countries.Design/methodology/approachThe research literature on coronavirus published globally and indexed in the Web of Science core collection was retrieved using the term “Coronavirus” and its related and synonymous terms (e.g. COVID-19, SARS-COV, SARS-COV-2 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus) as per the Medical List of Subject Headings. A total of 5,625 publications were retrieved; however, the study was restricted to articles only (i.e. 4,471), and other document types were excluded. Quantitative and visualization techniques were used for data analysis and interpretation. VOSViewer software was employed to map collaborative networks of authors, institutions and countries.FindingsA total of 4,471 articles have been published on coronavirus by 99 countries of the world with the maximum contribution from the USA, followed by the People's Republic of China. The United States, China, Canada, Netherlands and Germany are the front runners in the collaborative network and form strong sub-networks with other countries as well. More than 1,000 institutions collaborate in the field of coronavirus research among 99 contributing countries. The authorship pattern shows that 97.5% of publications are contributed by authors in collaboration in which 77.5% of publications are contributed by four or more than four authors. The range between degree of collaboration (DC) varies from 0.89 in 1993 to 1 in 2000 with an average of 0.96 from 1989 to 2020. The results confirm that the coronavirus research is carried out in teamwork at the individual, institutional and global levels with high magnitude and density of collaboration. The relative growth of the literature has shown inconsistency as a decreasing trend has been observed from 2007 onwards, thereby increasing the doubling time from 4.2 in the first ten years to 17.3 in the last ten years.Research limitationsThe study is limited to the publications indexed in the Web of Science; the findings cannot be generalized across other databases.Practical implicationsThe results of the study may help medical scientists to identify the progress in COVID-19 research. Besdies, it will help to identify the prolific authors, institutions and countries in the development of research.Social implicationsThe current COVID-19 pandemic poses urgent and prolonged threats to the health and well-being of the population worldwide. It has not only attacked the health of the people but the economy of nations as well. Therefore, it is feasible to know the research landscape of the disease to conquer the problem.Originality/valueThe current COVID-19 pandemic poses urgent and prolonged threats to the health and well-being of the population worldwide. It has not only attacked the health of the people but also the economy of nations as well. Therefore, it is feasible to know the research landscape of the disease to conquer the problem.

Introduction

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 385-388
Author(s):  
David B. Mattern
Keyword(s):  
Early Republic ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United States Congress ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Constitutional Convention ◽  
Continental Congress ◽  
Law Student

For a man who studied, but never practiced law, laws and lawgiving played a central role in the life of James Madison. In a public career spanning forty years, in which he served in the Virginia General Assembly, the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, the United States Congress, as secretary of state, and as president, Madison could be found at the center of events, at one time or another, either establishing, expounding, discussing, interpreting, or executing state or federal law. Even in his long retirement, he had important things to say about constitutional interpretation. In all this activity, vital to the creation and continued well-being of the early Republic, did Madison's status as a law student, but not a lawyer, matter much in his search for solutions to the persistent problems of republican self-governance?

Tocqueville's Constitutionalism

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 1175-1195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P. Kraynak
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Moral Virtue ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Private Rights ◽  
Constitutional System

For the ancient philosophers, constitutionalism meant classifying regimes and constructing regimes to form virtuous citizens. In the modern world it generally means checks and balances, institutional mechanisms limiting the power of government and protecting private rights. In Democracy in America Tocqueville attempts to combine both views in his interpretation of the U.S. constitutional system. He employs the regime analysis of ancient constitutionalism to understand the new phenomenon of popular sovereignty and its potential for despotic control over the minds and characters of citizens. At the same time, he shows how the constitutional devices found in the United States—such as federalism, judicial review, and the separation of powers—can be adapted to inculcate a kind of moral virtue by teaching citizens to exercise liberty with moral responsibility and to govern themselves. The result is a constitutional theory that weaves ancient and modern principles into an original and coherent whole.

The Origin, Meaning and International Force of the Monroe Doctrine

1920 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Charlemagne Tower
Keyword(s):  
Subsequent Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Monroe Doctrine ◽  
American Colonies ◽  
The People ◽  
Equal Importance ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The One

I Beg leave to present in this article for consideration, a few of the characteristic details of what we know, and what has come during the past century to be known generally in the international and political world, as the Monroe Doctrine. I would point out its origin, its meaning, its development with the extension and growing importance of American national influence throughout the nineteenth century, and the importance of its bearing upon the American national life of our day—as well as its compelling power in every great movement of political weight that has taken place in the course of our dealings with foreign nations since the establishment of the Government of the United States. Its ground principle is laid in the deeply-rooted sentiment of the people of this country, upon which the fabric of personal intellectual and political independence from all the rest of the world is built up; for it has for its object the safeguarding and defence of the essential qualities of American freedom. It began to make itself felt at the moment when American freedom came into existence and separated the people of this continent from those who still lived in the old world. The truth is, that at the end of the eighteenth century a revolution had taken place which had not only the result of taking away from Great Britain her North American colonies, but, what was of equal importance in the subsequent development of political relations between sovereign states,—a revolution had taken place in the minds of men. The feudal traditions of government which had obtained for a thousand years, carrying with them the accepted formulas of supremacy and control, on the one hand, and the obligation of obedience, with the duty of submission, on the other, were intentionally removed from the plan of life and from the rule of conduct of men in America.

scholarly journals How Effective Public Managers Transform Separation of Powers into “Inseparable Powers” in United States Foster Care Administration Networks

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 121
Author(s):  
Rebecca Padot
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foster Care ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Field Research ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Public Managers ◽  
Care Outcomes

Results from a four state foster care administration field research study in the United States with over 55 key player interviews produced data on what particular networking practices public managers perform that contributes to foster care administration effectiveness.  One of these practices was the concept of inseparable powers, whereby the traditional checks and balances roles of the judicial, executive, and legislative branches are slightly altered in eras of state-level foster care administration effectiveness.  During a period of inseparable powers, effective public managers work across the state branch boundaries in the United States with partners from other branches to produce better foster care outcomes. 

scholarly journals Are There “Sources of Resilience” When the Separation of Powers Breaks Down?

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 25-36
Author(s):  
Arjun Tremblay
Keyword(s):  
Political Power ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Ambition ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The People ◽  
Legislative Branch ◽  
Parliamentary Systems ◽  
The Many ◽  
The One

Jacob Levy describes three variants of the separation of powers in the 31st Annual McDonald Lecture in Constitutional Studies, only one of which is germane to this reflection. The first variant he describes is based solely on the independence of the judiciary from both the executive and legislative branches of governments; consequently, this variant encompasses both presidential and parliamentary systems under its conceptual ambit. Another variant, which Levy attributes to Montesquieu, envisages the separation of powers between executive, judicial, and legislative branches as a way of allowing for the “pooled”1 rule of “the one” (i.e. monarch), “the few” (i.e. aristocrats), and “the many” (i.e. the people). Levy also describes a distinctly American variant of the separation of powers undergirded by a system of checks and balances. This variant was designed to ensure “mutual monitoring between executive and legislative”2 and it vests the legislative branch with the power to impeach the executive in order to “maintain effective limits on the political power and the political ambition of the president.”3

Overcoming Necessity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Crocker
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Identity ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Congress ◽  
The People ◽  
Emergency Actions ◽  
Constitutional Tradition ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Political Understanding

Using emergency as a cause for action ultimately leads to an almost unnoticed evolution in the political understanding of presidential powers. The Constitution of the United States, however, was designed to function under “states of exception,” most notably through the separation of powers, and provides ample internal checks on emergency actions taken under claims of necessity. This book urges the United States Congress, the courts, and other bodies to put those checks into practice. The book analyzes the constitutional norms that fail to guide and constrain the choice of action through an analysis of what is appropriate. It explores how constitutional norms always apply as unavoidably normative constitutional questions during an emergency. It explains how necessity can produce dictatorship, because the people are willing to allow whatever it takes to solve their immediate needs, and it looks into the theory that a president might suspend the constitutional order in order to post hoc political accountability. It then talks about necessity that enables presidential discretion, and responds to arguments regarding the president having all the power that necessity confers. The book considers the scope of implied presidential power, arguing that even if there is power to do what is necessary, it is still constrained by conceptions of what is proper. It emphasizes how deference to the president is inconsistent with a constitutional tradition that preciously guards decisions about liberty. The book concludes with a review of the commitment to constitutional values as a constitutive feature of political identity in American constitutionalism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document