Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:16:33.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Woodrow Wilson: Interpreting the Constitution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Christopher Wolfe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A close examination of early and modern American constitutional interpretation reveals that there has been an essential change in the manner in which the Constitution is interpreted. When that comparison takes the form of a comparison between very early Supreme Court decisions and very recent ones the difference is relatively clear—at least that there is a difference. To some extent, what some of the differences are is observable. For instance, the overt balancing of interests (those of state and individual) in modern civil liberties cases is quite different from the character of earlier Supreme Court decisions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1979 , pp. 121 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional Government (1885; Boston, 1913)Google Scholar.

2 Wilson, Woodrow, Constitutional Government in the United States (1908; New York, 1961)Google Scholar.

3 Farrand, Max, ed., Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 4 vols. (New Haven, 1937), I: 288–89Google Scholar.

4 Lodge, Henry Cabot, ed., Works of Alexander Hamilton, 12 vols. (New York, 1953), IX: 532–35Google Scholar.

5 Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James and Jay, John, The Federalist, Modem Library (1964), No. 23, pp. 141–47Google Scholar.

6 Federalist, No. 70, pp. 454–55.

7 See, for example, his Division and Reunion: 1829–1909 (London, 1910), pp. 44–48Google Scholar.

8 Farrand, , Records Federal Convention, III: 448–49Google Scholar.

9 See, for example, Cardozo, Benjamin, The Nature of the Judicial Process (New Haven, 1921), pp. 169–70Google Scholar.

10 See, for example, Marshall's, opinion in Osborne v. Bank of U.S., 9 Wheaton 738, 866Google Scholar.

11 9 Wheaton 1 (1824).

12 Works of Hamilton, III:463.

13 4 Wheaton 517.

14 Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Dangerous Branch (Indianapolis, 1962), p. 72Google Scholar.