Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Comparative Approach
- 1 The past and present of comparative constitutional studies
- 2 The culture wars, American exceptionalism, and a comparative analysis of religion–state relations
- 3 Employing a comparative approach
- Part II Religion–State Relations and the Role of Neutrality
- Index
- References
1 - The past and present of comparative constitutional studies
from Part I - The Comparative Approach
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Comparative Approach
- 1 The past and present of comparative constitutional studies
- 2 The culture wars, American exceptionalism, and a comparative analysis of religion–state relations
- 3 Employing a comparative approach
- Part II Religion–State Relations and the Role of Neutrality
- Index
- References
Summary
The comparative study of neutrality in religion–state relations that follows does not take place in an intellectual vacuum. In addition to the rich literature on comparative law generally, there is an ever-growing body of literature on comparative constitutional law. In the United States, comparative constitutional law has lately become both an emerging field of study and a controversial notion. A quite remarkable debate has developed over the last decade on the proper role – if any – of comparative constitutional law. That debate forms the background for this inquiry.
The disagreement over a comparative approach to constitutional interpretation and study is perhaps one of the most prominent debates in contemporary US constitutional law discourse. All relevant groups of actors, including academics and judges as well as politicians, are engaged in the debate that is taking place in the scholarly literature, in opinions of the United States Supreme Court, in legislative debates in Congress, and in the media. The underlying questions touch on the core understanding of what constitutions are and how they should be interpreted. This chapter is a primarily descriptive account of that debate; the goal is not to recap the entire debate, but to address a few particularly important issues.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Religion-State Relations in the United States and GermanyThe Quest for Neutrality, pp. 11 - 39Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
Traveler from an Antique Land: The Modern Renaissance of Comparative Constitutionalism 2009 50 Virginia Journal of International LawGoogle Scholar
Looking Beyond Our Borders: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication 2004 22 Yale Law & Policy ReviewGoogle Scholar
Our Law, Their Law, History, and the Citation of Foreign Law 2006 86 Boston University Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
A Common Law of Human Rights? Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights 2000 20 Oxford Journal of Legal StudiesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
How American Ideas Traveled: Comparative Constitutional Law at Germany’s National Assembly in 1848–1849 2002 17 Tulane European & Civil Law ForumGoogle Scholar
The Value of Comparative Constitutional Law 1976 9 John Marshall Journal of Practice & ProcedureGoogle Scholar
Mapping Comparative Judicial Review 2008 7 Washington University Global Studies Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Ambivalent Resistance and Comparative Constitutionalism: Opening Up the Conversation on “Proportionality,” Rights, and Federalism 1999 1 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional LawGoogle Scholar
Changing Relationships Among European Constitutional Courts 2000 21 Cardozo Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Globalization and the Future of Constitutional Rights 2008 102 Northwestern University Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
The Inevitable Globalization of Constitutional Law 2009 49 Virginia Journal of International LawGoogle Scholar
Constitutional Comparisons: Convergence, Resistance, Engagement 2005 119 Harvard Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
A Shining City on a Hill”: American Exceptionalism and the Supreme Court’s Practice of Relying on Foreign Law 2006 86 Boston University Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty Decision 2005 47 William & Mary Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Constitutional Engagement in a Transnational EraOxford and New YorkOxford University Press 2010Google Scholar
Law’s Migration: American Exceptionalism, Silent Dialogues, and Federalism’s Multiple Ports of Entry 2006 115 Yale Law JournalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constitutional Dialogue and Human Rights: States and Transnational Constitutional Discourse 2004 65 Montana Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Narratives of Federalism: Of Continuities and Comparative Constitutional Experience 2001 51 Duke Law JournalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Transnational Discourse, Relational Authority, and the U.S. Court: Gender Equality 2003 37 Loyola of Los Angeles Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Comparative Constitutional Federalism and Transnational Judicial Discourse 2004 2 International Journal of Constitutional LawCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constitutional Law and Transnational Comparisons: The Youngstown Decision and American Exceptionalism 2006 30 Harvard Journal of Law & Public PolicyGoogle Scholar
Constitutions as “Living Trees”? Comparative Constitutional Law and Interpretive Metaphors 2006 75 Fordham Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Returning With Interest: Observations on Some Putative Benefits of Studying Comparative Constitutional Law 1998 1 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional LawGoogle Scholar
Interpreting Constitutions Comparatively: Some Cautionary Notes, With Reference to Affirmative Action 2004 36 Connecticut Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Referring to Foreign Law in Constitutional Interpretation: An Episode in the Culture Wars 2006 35 University of Baltimore Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
When is Knowing Less Better than Knowing More? Unpacking the Controversy Over Supreme Court Reference to Non-U.S. Law 2006 90 Minnesota Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
A Decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind”: Referring to Foreign Law to Express American Nationhood 2006 69 Albany Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Globalization in Search of Justification: Toward a Theory of Comparative Constitutional Interpretation 1999 74 Indiana Law JournalGoogle Scholar
Contemporary Foreign and International Law in Constitutional Construction 2006 69 Albany Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Citing Foreign and International Law to Interpret the Constitution: What’s the Point? 2006 69 Albany Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Divisions of Opinion Among Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1939–1941 1941 35 American Political Science ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model RevisitedCambridge and New YorkCambridge University Press 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist ApproachesUniversity of Chicago Press 1999Google Scholar
Constitutional Cases: A Conversation between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer 2005 3 International Journal of Constitutional LawGoogle Scholar