Iain McLean
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199546954
- eISBN:
- 9780191720031
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546954.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, UK Politics
Veto players and win sets in a pluralitarian democracy, compared to those in a proportional regime; and in a unitary compared to a federal regime. Duverger's Law. Constitutional moments in the United ...
More
Veto players and win sets in a pluralitarian democracy, compared to those in a proportional regime; and in a unitary compared to a federal regime. Duverger's Law. Constitutional moments in the United States. The unconstitutionality of the great constitutional changes there.Less
Veto players and win sets in a pluralitarian democracy, compared to those in a proportional regime; and in a unitary compared to a federal regime. Duverger's Law. Constitutional moments in the United States. The unconstitutionality of the great constitutional changes there.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
Argues that the role of debate in the struggle over ratification was significant to the adoption of the US Constitution because public debate was a necessary step in the decision‐making process ...
More
Argues that the role of debate in the struggle over ratification was significant to the adoption of the US Constitution because public debate was a necessary step in the decision‐making process leading to its ratification. It was a necessary step because adoption would not have been legitimate without the possibility of public debate, but the debate was also significant in another way: it provided the first widely shared and detailed interpretation of important clauses of the Constitution. This original elucidation of the meaning of the Constitution later served as the point of origin for constitutional interpretation in the political life of the early republic – an authoritative source for establishing the meaning of the Constitution.Less
Argues that the role of debate in the struggle over ratification was significant to the adoption of the US Constitution because public debate was a necessary step in the decision‐making process leading to its ratification. It was a necessary step because adoption would not have been legitimate without the possibility of public debate, but the debate was also significant in another way: it provided the first widely shared and detailed interpretation of important clauses of the Constitution. This original elucidation of the meaning of the Constitution later served as the point of origin for constitutional interpretation in the political life of the early republic – an authoritative source for establishing the meaning of the Constitution.
Alan M. Dershowitz
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780195158076
- eISBN:
- 9780199869848
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195158075.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
Gives an account of the final decision of the US Supreme Court on the Florida vote in the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000. Includes discussion of the deliberations and decisions of ...
More
Gives an account of the final decision of the US Supreme Court on the Florida vote in the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000. Includes discussion of the deliberations and decisions of the Florida Supreme Court in the case of the recount in that state. The main sections of the chapter are: Imperfect Ballots and the Misuse of the Equal‐Protection Clause; Discerning Intent; The Majority's Curious Use of Precedent to Reach Its Result — the inability of the majority of the Supreme Court to point to any case that supported its questionable interpretation of the equal‐protection clause; Of Fundamental Rights, Equal Protection, and Victims; Limited Circumstances — the statement by the Supreme Court that their consideration was limited to the 2000 US presidential election; The Article II Argument — by the US Supreme Court that the Florida Supreme Court had usurped the constitutional authority of the legislature; and Justification by National Crisis.Less
Gives an account of the final decision of the US Supreme Court on the Florida vote in the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000. Includes discussion of the deliberations and decisions of the Florida Supreme Court in the case of the recount in that state. The main sections of the chapter are: Imperfect Ballots and the Misuse of the Equal‐Protection Clause; Discerning Intent; The Majority's Curious Use of Precedent to Reach Its Result — the inability of the majority of the Supreme Court to point to any case that supported its questionable interpretation of the equal‐protection clause; Of Fundamental Rights, Equal Protection, and Victims; Limited Circumstances — the statement by the Supreme Court that their consideration was limited to the 2000 US presidential election; The Article II Argument — by the US Supreme Court that the Florida Supreme Court had usurped the constitutional authority of the legislature; and Justification by National Crisis.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
The first two sections of this chapter discuss the two main approaches to the analysis of the ratification debate over the US Constitution. Until the late 1960s, the predominant interpretation ...
More
The first two sections of this chapter discuss the two main approaches to the analysis of the ratification debate over the US Constitution. Until the late 1960s, the predominant interpretation described the debate over ratification as a conflict between “aristocratic” and “democratic” ideals and interests, but at about that time, scholars began to shift to a second approach that used the terms “liberalism” and “classical republicanism” to account for ideological differences during the revolutionary era; this shift was also accompanied by a change in the interpreters’ concerns away from social struggle toward the study of the development of political ideas. The argument presented here is that the terminology so far favored by historians and political scientists has obscured important aspects of the ideological differences between the Federalists and their opponents because it has drawn attention away from the actual issues debated during the ratification struggle. This claim can be supported in different ways, but the approach used here is to look closely at what prominent interpreters say about the limits of their own interpretation, even though this it risks being unfair to the perspectives reviewed. The last two sections of the chapter present an approach that promises better to capture the essence of the ideological disagreement between the Federalists and the Antifederalists as presented in the debate over ratification, and suggest that the debate is best seen as neither about democracy nor about liberalism, but about state formation.Less
The first two sections of this chapter discuss the two main approaches to the analysis of the ratification debate over the US Constitution. Until the late 1960s, the predominant interpretation described the debate over ratification as a conflict between “aristocratic” and “democratic” ideals and interests, but at about that time, scholars began to shift to a second approach that used the terms “liberalism” and “classical republicanism” to account for ideological differences during the revolutionary era; this shift was also accompanied by a change in the interpreters’ concerns away from social struggle toward the study of the development of political ideas. The argument presented here is that the terminology so far favored by historians and political scientists has obscured important aspects of the ideological differences between the Federalists and their opponents because it has drawn attention away from the actual issues debated during the ratification struggle. This claim can be supported in different ways, but the approach used here is to look closely at what prominent interpreters say about the limits of their own interpretation, even though this it risks being unfair to the perspectives reviewed. The last two sections of the chapter present an approach that promises better to capture the essence of the ideological disagreement between the Federalists and the Antifederalists as presented in the debate over ratification, and suggest that the debate is best seen as neither about democracy nor about liberalism, but about state formation.
Mark Weston Janis
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199579341
- eISBN:
- 9780191722653
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579341.003.0002
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law, Legal History
No group of America's leaders has ever been more mindful of the law of nations than were the Founding Fathers. This chapter tells a little of that story. It begins with American perceptions of the ...
More
No group of America's leaders has ever been more mindful of the law of nations than were the Founding Fathers. This chapter tells a little of that story. It begins with American perceptions of the law of nations during the Revolution and Confederation (1776-1789), focusing on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Second, it turns to the importance of the law of nations in the framing of the US Constitution (1787-1789), focusing on James Madison. Third, the chapter explores how the founders relied on international law in early American diplomacy. Finally, it looks to the incorporation of the law of nations in early American judicial practice, particularly the contribution made by John Marshall.Less
No group of America's leaders has ever been more mindful of the law of nations than were the Founding Fathers. This chapter tells a little of that story. It begins with American perceptions of the law of nations during the Revolution and Confederation (1776-1789), focusing on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Second, it turns to the importance of the law of nations in the framing of the US Constitution (1787-1789), focusing on James Madison. Third, the chapter explores how the founders relied on international law in early American diplomacy. Finally, it looks to the incorporation of the law of nations in early American judicial practice, particularly the contribution made by John Marshall.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
The aim of this book is described as to search for answers as to why the US Constitution was adopted. Like most other studies of this topic, it focusses on the Federalist argument, although it also ...
More
The aim of this book is described as to search for answers as to why the US Constitution was adopted. Like most other studies of this topic, it focusses on the Federalist argument, although it also takes the Antifederalist opposition into account. However, the conclusions reached deviate sharply from the mainstream interpretation of the Federalist persuasion in that the study aims to challenge the Madisonian interpretation of Federalism in two ways: it goes beyond the interpretation of The Federalist Papers of 1787–88 and James Madison's pre‐Convention writings to analyze a much broader sample of Federalist and Antifederalist writings; and based on this broader reading, it provides a new interpretation of what the Constitution and the Federalist argument were about. The major finding presented is that the Federalist argument was not a protoliberal call for minority rights and limited government but an argument about state formation or state building. The first two sections of the introduction discuss Madison's thoughts and writings on the Federalist dilemma, and the problems of the traditionalist interpretation of the Federalist position; the last two sections give an outline of the structure of the book and describe its intended audience.Less
The aim of this book is described as to search for answers as to why the US Constitution was adopted. Like most other studies of this topic, it focusses on the Federalist argument, although it also takes the Antifederalist opposition into account. However, the conclusions reached deviate sharply from the mainstream interpretation of the Federalist persuasion in that the study aims to challenge the Madisonian interpretation of Federalism in two ways: it goes beyond the interpretation of The Federalist Papers of 1787–88 and James Madison's pre‐Convention writings to analyze a much broader sample of Federalist and Antifederalist writings; and based on this broader reading, it provides a new interpretation of what the Constitution and the Federalist argument were about. The major finding presented is that the Federalist argument was not a protoliberal call for minority rights and limited government but an argument about state formation or state building. The first two sections of the introduction discuss Madison's thoughts and writings on the Federalist dilemma, and the problems of the traditionalist interpretation of the Federalist position; the last two sections give an outline of the structure of the book and describe its intended audience.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0008
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
Chapter 7 and the corresponding Ch. 12 in Part Three of the book present the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, with this chapter looking ...
More
Chapter 7 and the corresponding Ch. 12 in Part Three of the book present the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, with this chapter looking closely at Antifederalist objections to the military clauses of the US Constitution. The opponents of the Constitution never accepted the Federalist claim that the independence, liberty, and prosperity of the American republic depended on the creation and maintenance of a peace establishment consisting of regular troops, and did not believe that the union faced as serious threats as the Federalists claimed, keeping to the view that standing armies in time of peace were a threat to liberty. Both ancient and modern history had taught that “almost all” nations in Europe and Asia had lost their liberty because of the establishment of a standing army, so it hardly made sense for Americans to imitate them. To Antifederalists, it seemed that if the military clauses of the Constitution were adopted and the Federalists realized their plan to raise a standing army, the people of America would soon find that the Constitution's supporters would make use of it on the domestic rather than the international scene. The Antifederalist criticism of the army clauses therefore said little about commercial treaties and the importance of military strength in international relations; instead, they approached the issue from the traditional British Country perspective, claiming that standing armies in time of peace posed a threat to liberty, that transfer of military power from the states to Congress threatened both the state militia and the state assemblies, and that a standing army would make it possible for the national government to deprive people of their property without their consent by levying and collecting arbitrary taxes – in other words, a standing army in a time of peace was to the Antifederalists an objection to the centralization of power at the expense of the people's ability to withhold consent through their control of strong local institutions.Less
Chapter 7 and the corresponding Ch. 12 in Part Three of the book present the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, with this chapter looking closely at Antifederalist objections to the military clauses of the US Constitution. The opponents of the Constitution never accepted the Federalist claim that the independence, liberty, and prosperity of the American republic depended on the creation and maintenance of a peace establishment consisting of regular troops, and did not believe that the union faced as serious threats as the Federalists claimed, keeping to the view that standing armies in time of peace were a threat to liberty. Both ancient and modern history had taught that “almost all” nations in Europe and Asia had lost their liberty because of the establishment of a standing army, so it hardly made sense for Americans to imitate them. To Antifederalists, it seemed that if the military clauses of the Constitution were adopted and the Federalists realized their plan to raise a standing army, the people of America would soon find that the Constitution's supporters would make use of it on the domestic rather than the international scene. The Antifederalist criticism of the army clauses therefore said little about commercial treaties and the importance of military strength in international relations; instead, they approached the issue from the traditional British Country perspective, claiming that standing armies in time of peace posed a threat to liberty, that transfer of military power from the states to Congress threatened both the state militia and the state assemblies, and that a standing army would make it possible for the national government to deprive people of their property without their consent by levying and collecting arbitrary taxes – in other words, a standing army in a time of peace was to the Antifederalists an objection to the centralization of power at the expense of the people's ability to withhold consent through their control of strong local institutions.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0013
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
Presents the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, with this chapter looking closely at Antifederalist objections to the federal fiscal powers ...
More
Presents the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, with this chapter looking closely at Antifederalist objections to the federal fiscal powers of the US Constitution, and the answers of the Federalists to these. Only rarely did the Antifederalists raise any objections to the right of Congress to borrow money, but the fact that they seemed to accept that public borrowing might sometimes be necessary did not mean that they accepted the need for an unlimited federal power over taxation. In their opposition to the Constitution's tax clauses, the Antifederalists continued an Anglo‐American political tradition of opposition against state growth that in turn is but an instant of a universal resistance to the centralization of power characteristic of early modern Europe. The Antifederalist opposition centered on the future role of the state legislatures: in Antifederalist thought the state assembly had come to take on the function filled by the House of Commons in English “Country” thought, so it was regarded as a crucial barrier against government abuse and as the only institution that made possible taxation with the consent of the governed.Less
Presents the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, with this chapter looking closely at Antifederalist objections to the federal fiscal powers of the US Constitution, and the answers of the Federalists to these. Only rarely did the Antifederalists raise any objections to the right of Congress to borrow money, but the fact that they seemed to accept that public borrowing might sometimes be necessary did not mean that they accepted the need for an unlimited federal power over taxation. In their opposition to the Constitution's tax clauses, the Antifederalists continued an Anglo‐American political tradition of opposition against state growth that in turn is but an instant of a universal resistance to the centralization of power characteristic of early modern Europe. The Antifederalist opposition centered on the future role of the state legislatures: in Antifederalist thought the state assembly had come to take on the function filled by the House of Commons in English “Country” thought, so it was regarded as a crucial barrier against government abuse and as the only institution that made possible taxation with the consent of the governed.
Alan M. Dershowitz
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780195158076
- eISBN:
- 9780199869848
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195158075.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
Outlines the constitutional and statutory framework within which presidential elections are conducted in the USA. Provides a brief chronology and an account of the US (Bush vs Gore) presidential ...
More
Outlines the constitutional and statutory framework within which presidential elections are conducted in the USA. Provides a brief chronology and an account of the US (Bush vs Gore) presidential election of 2000. The different sections of the chapter are: How We Elect Our President (the constitutional and statutory framework); The 2000 Election and Its Aftermath; The Ground War in Florida; The Butterfly Ballot; ‘Count All the Votes’ — or at Least the Ones That Favour Gore; Bush Goes to Court; The Overseas Absentee Ballots; The Supreme Court's Initial — Unanimous — Decision; and The Supreme Court's Stay (the decision to stop recounting in Florida before even hearing an argument) — looks at other cases in which equal protection has or has not been applied by the US Supreme Court.Less
Outlines the constitutional and statutory framework within which presidential elections are conducted in the USA. Provides a brief chronology and an account of the US (Bush vs Gore) presidential election of 2000. The different sections of the chapter are: How We Elect Our President (the constitutional and statutory framework); The 2000 Election and Its Aftermath; The Ground War in Florida; The Butterfly Ballot; ‘Count All the Votes’ — or at Least the Ones That Favour Gore; Bush Goes to Court; The Overseas Absentee Ballots; The Supreme Court's Initial — Unanimous — Decision; and The Supreme Court's Stay (the decision to stop recounting in Florida before even hearing an argument) — looks at other cases in which equal protection has or has not been applied by the US Supreme Court.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
In this new interpretation of America's origins, the author argues that during the Constitutional debates, the Federalists were primarily concerned with building a state able to act vigorously in ...
More
In this new interpretation of America's origins, the author argues that during the Constitutional debates, the Federalists were primarily concerned with building a state able to act vigorously in defense of American national interests. By transferring the powers of war making and resource extraction from states to the national government, the US Constitution created a nation‐state invested with all the important powers of Europe's eighteenth‐century “fiscal‐military states.” However, the political traditions and institutions of America, whose people had a deeply ingrained distrust of unduly concentrated authority, were incompatible with a strong centralized government based on the European pattern. To secure the adoption of the Constitution, the Federalists needed to build a very different state – they had to accommodate the formation of a powerful national government to the strong current of anti‐statism in the American political tradition. They did so by designing an administration that would be powerful in times of crisis, but would make limited demands on citizens and entailed sharp restrictions on the physical presence of the national government in society. The Constitution was the Federalists’ promise of the benefits of government without its costs – statecraft rather than strong central authority as the solution to governing. The book takes advantage of a newly published edition of the constitutional debates in recovering a neglected strand of Federalist argument, and making a case for rethinking the formation of the federal American state. It is arranged in three main parts: I. Interpreting the Debate over Ratification (four chapters); II. Military Powers (five chapters); and III. Fiscal Powers (five chapters).Less
In this new interpretation of America's origins, the author argues that during the Constitutional debates, the Federalists were primarily concerned with building a state able to act vigorously in defense of American national interests. By transferring the powers of war making and resource extraction from states to the national government, the US Constitution created a nation‐state invested with all the important powers of Europe's eighteenth‐century “fiscal‐military states.” However, the political traditions and institutions of America, whose people had a deeply ingrained distrust of unduly concentrated authority, were incompatible with a strong centralized government based on the European pattern. To secure the adoption of the Constitution, the Federalists needed to build a very different state – they had to accommodate the formation of a powerful national government to the strong current of anti‐statism in the American political tradition. They did so by designing an administration that would be powerful in times of crisis, but would make limited demands on citizens and entailed sharp restrictions on the physical presence of the national government in society. The Constitution was the Federalists’ promise of the benefits of government without its costs – statecraft rather than strong central authority as the solution to governing. The book takes advantage of a newly published edition of the constitutional debates in recovering a neglected strand of Federalist argument, and making a case for rethinking the formation of the federal American state. It is arranged in three main parts: I. Interpreting the Debate over Ratification (four chapters); II. Military Powers (five chapters); and III. Fiscal Powers (five chapters).
