Contest for Constitutional Authority: The Arboration and War Powers Debates

Front Cover
University Press of Kansas, 1992 - Law - 172 pages
Is the judiciary the ultimate authority on constitutional questions? Susan Burgess says no. Basing her argument on the theory of "departmental review," Burgess contends that each branch of government has the right to interpret the Constitution and that no branch has final authority. Through close study of the abortion and war powers debates, Burgess illustrates that the practice of departmental review improves the quality of constitutional debate, deepens "constitutional consciousness," and enhances respect for the rule of law. First, she investigates the constitutional issues relating to the debates over Roe v. Wade and, in its wake, the 1981 human life bill, the 1985 Abortion Funding Restriction Act, and contemporaneous court cases. She follows with a comparative analysis of the constitutional debates that focused on the infamous 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Persian Gulf crisis of the late 1980s--one before and the other after the passage of the 1973 War Powers Act.

From inside the book

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Contents

Departmentalism Constitutional Consciousness
109
Proposed Abortion Legislation
127
Selected Bibliography
163
Copyright

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Bibliographic information