Supreme Court decisions of 1977 and 1978
In: Edward S. Corwin's The constitution and what it means today Suppl.,1978
80 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Edward S. Corwin's The constitution and what it means today Suppl.,1978
In: Cornell Paperbacks
In: American political science review, Band 49, Heft 4, S. 1241-1241
ISSN: 1537-5943
In: American political science review, Band 46, Heft 4, S. 1167-1173
ISSN: 1537-5943
In: National municipal review, Band 40, Heft 10, S. 556-557
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 11, Heft 1, S. 7-13
ISSN: 1468-2508
In: American political science review, Band 42, Heft 1, S. 117-118
ISSN: 1537-5943
Accepting the Clausewitz thesis that "war is only an extension of policy," we are free to say that the politicians have created chaos in these latter days in a rather wholesale way. But that is another story. The World Revolution is not my topic, but the comparatively limited revolution which we have been witnessing in our own country the last few years in consequence of the New Deal and more recently of the war. How has this revolution affected conceptions of governmental power in the United States; how is it to be evaluated in terms of American Constitutional Law? For Constitutional Law has always been the most distinctive feature of the American system of government, the result of a unique infusion of politics with jurisprudence, of current opinion with established principles. Today this remarkable product of American political genius appears to be undergoing a fundamental revision—even to be in process of dissolution.
BASE
In: American political science review, Band 38, Heft 6, S. 1216-1218
ISSN: 1537-5943
In: American political science review, Band 37, Heft 1, S. 18-25
ISSN: 1537-5943
The chief lesson of the war to date for constitutional interpretation is that the Constitution is an easily dispensable factor of our war effort—perhaps one might say an "expendable" factor. That the Constitution is not needed as a source of national power for war purposes has been stated by the Court itself. Speaking in 1936 for himself and brethren in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, Justice Sutherland said: "The investment of the Federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war [my italics], to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have been vested in the Federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality" (299 U.S. 304, 318).
In: American political science review, Band 36, Heft 5, S. 954-955
ISSN: 1537-5943
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 223, Heft 1, S. 238-239
ISSN: 1552-3349
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 221, Heft 1, S. 192-193
ISSN: 1552-3349
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 218, Heft 1, S. 122-131
ISSN: 1552-3349