The Bill of Rights
The first lecture tries to state the justification under our system for the courts' power to annul a federal or state statute because it is contrary to the Constitution. The second lecture discusses what are the conditions upon which this power should be exercised when it is based upon the "Due Process Clause" or the "Equal Protection Clause." The third lecture first explains why the interests mentioned in the First Amendment are not entitled in point of consititutional interpretation to a measure of protection different from other interests; and then concludes by considering whether, even if the Consitution does not warrant the courts in annulling any legislation because they disapprove it on the merits, nevertheless it is desirable that they should exercise such an authority on extreme occasions. - p. 56.
19 pages matching exercise in this book
Results 1-3 of 19
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
When a Court Should Intervene
Madison 1 Cranch 137 177 178 6
Cabell 326 U S 404 407
10 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
administrative tribunal annul appears appraisal arise Aristotle assume believe Bill of Rights Child Labor Tax choice cision clusion command commerce conduct conflict construe contrary controversy covering the occasion crime Day-Brite Lighting decide declared definite Department determine distinction divorced from action doctrine doubt Due Process Clause duty economic Equal Protection Clause exercise flict forbids forecast Fourteenth Amendment hearer impossible inter interpretation issues Joseph Burstyn judges judicial intervention judicial review jurisdiction justice justment Kahriger language least legislative authority legislative judgment legislature liberty limits means ment mind Nature and Sources necessary opinion overruled Police Power political powers of Congress present President privilege prohibitions purpose question racial equality reason regulation religious restraint reverse the legislative scope seems specific statute suppose Supremacy Clause Supreme Court Taney tion true United valid values and sacrifices Veazie Bank voted W. D. Ross words