-
1
-
-
84976086905
-
The Imperial Congress
-
See, April 9, (editorial page)
-
See Mark Helprin, “The Imperial Congress,” The Wall Street Journal, April 9, 1987, p. 32 (editorial page).
-
(1987)
The Wall Street Journal
, pp. 32
-
-
Helprin, M.1
-
2
-
-
0040104395
-
The Prize Cases
-
for Dana's brief, see 650–65, and especially 659–60
-
The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1862); for Dana's brief, see 650–65, and especially 659–60.
-
(1862)
U.S.
, vol.67
, pp. 635
-
-
-
3
-
-
33644758235
-
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
-
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936).
-
(1936)
U.S.
, vol.299
, pp. 304
-
-
-
4
-
-
84976086918
-
Luther v. Borden
-
See, 1
-
See Taney in Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), at 44.
-
(1849)
U.S.
, vol.48
, pp. 44
-
-
Taney1
-
5
-
-
0004167854
-
-
See, (Boston: Little, Brown)
-
See Kissinger, The White House Years (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979), p. 1415.
-
(1979)
The White House Years
, pp. 1415
-
-
Kissinger1
-
6
-
-
84976107537
-
-
October 28
-
Congressional Record, October 28, 1983, S 14869.
-
(1983)
Congressional Record
, pp. 14869
-
-
-
7
-
-
33749620666
-
-
ed., (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press)
-
The Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Vol. III, p. 255.
-
(1953)
The Works of Abraham Lincoln
, vol.3
, pp. 255
-
-
Basler, R.P.1
-
8
-
-
84976097719
-
-
The record of these cases can be found in, (Boston: Lee & Shepard), Vol. 6, p. 144
-
The record of these cases can be found in The Works of Charles Sumner (Boston: Lee & Shepard, 1880), Vol. 5, pp. 497–98; Vol. 6, p. 144.
-
(1880)
The Works of Charles Sumner
, vol.5
, pp. 497-498
-
-
-
9
-
-
8344280312
-
-
For a fuller treatment of this question, see, (Princeton: Princeton University Press), Lincoln attended closely to the writings of John Marshall, and he had no reason to expect that the position he staked out here was inconsistent in any way with the understanding articulated by the Chief Justice in Marbury v. Madison. The misunderstanding has now become diffused, among lawyers and politicians, that the same case which established the authority of the Court to interpret the Constitution also established the Court as the sole, authoritative interpreter of the Constitution. But no claim of that kind is put forth in Marbury v. Madison; in fact, Marshall claimed nothing for the judges that could not have been claimed for any other officer of the government. Again, see Arkes, above, for a more extended discussion.
-
For a fuller treatment of this question, see Arkes, First Things (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 418–22. Lincoln attended closely to the writings of John Marshall, and he had no reason to expect that the position he staked out here was inconsistent in any way with the understanding articulated by the Chief Justice in Marbury v. Madison. The misunderstanding has now become diffused, among lawyers and politicians, that the same case which established the authority of the Court to interpret the Constitution also established the Court as the sole, authoritative interpreter of the Constitution. But no claim of that kind is put forth in Marbury v. Madison; in fact, Marshall claimed nothing for the judges that could not have been claimed for any other officer of the government. Again, see Arkes, above, for a more extended discussion.
-
(1986)
First Things
, pp. 418-422
-
-
Arkes1
-
10
-
-
84976097713
-
-
2d
-
77 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1983).
-
(1983)
L. Ed.
, vol.77
, pp. 317
-
-
|
