Madison V. Marshall: Popular Sovereignty, Natural Law, and the United States Constitution
Popular Sovereignty or Natural Law? At a time of constitutional crisis in the American body politic, Guy Padula's timely and stimulating new work explores whether the answers to today's heated political debate can be found by scrutinizing the past. In Madison v. Marshall Padula turns the spotlight on the interpretive intent of America's Founding Fathers to discover if the consent of the people or the rule of justice triumphs. Comparing the constitutional theories of the Founding generation's two preeminent constitutional authorities, Padula shatters the Originalist myth that Madison and Marshall shared a compatible constitutional jurisprudence. He concludes that the meaning of the Constitution has been contested from the outset. This is essential reading for legal scholars, political scientists and historians seeking to learn more about the fundamental nature of U.S. law and how it should be interpreted.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
All Countries Have Some Form of Government
The Poisonous Tendency of Precedents of Usurpation
We the People An Assembly of Demigods
Colonel H Deserted Me
I Believe I Must Nominate You
Never Give Him an Affirmative Answer
Other editions - View all
1st Cong according adopted amendment American ancient approach argued argument asked asserted authority bank believed Blackstone chapter chief justice claim clearly Commentaries commerce common concerning Congress consideration considered constitutional interpretation constitutionalism construction Contract Clause Convention Court Debates and Proceedings decision delegates doctrine English establish executive explained fact federal Federalist founders framers fundamental grant Hamilton historical House idea important incorporated intent interest issue James Madison Jefferson John judges judicial judiciary June later legislative legislature letter limited Lopez majority March Marshall Marshall's meaning natural natural law necessary never noted objections obligation offered opinion original original understanding originalists Perhaps political positive practice president principles prohibited proposed protect provision question quoted ratified reason reference remain Republican ruling speech statement Supreme Court theory Thomas thought Treaty understanding United University Press violated Virginia writing wrote York