Madison V. Marshall: Popular Sovereignty, Natural Law, and the United States ConstitutionPopular 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. |
Contents
The Poisonous Tendency of Precedents of Usurpation | 23 |
An Assembly of Demigods | 43 |
Colonel H Deserted Me | 65 |
Copyright | |
4 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
1st Cong 1st sess 3rd sess Adams amendment American ancient constitution Antifederalists approach to constitutional Articles of Confederation asserted believed Bill of Rights Blackstone Blackstone's Boorstin chapter chief justice claim Commentaries common law considered Constitutional Convention constitutional interpretation constitutional meaning constitutional theory constitutionalism Continental Congress Contract Clause Dartmouth College Debates and Proceedings decision delegates dispute English essay Federal Convention Fletcher founders framers fundamental law historical incorporated interpretive intent J. G. A. Pocock James Madison Jay Treaty John Marshall judges judicial review judiciary Law Review legislature Lopez Madison and Marshall Madison's argument Marshall Court Marshall's McCulloch national bank natural law natural rights Necessary and Proper nonoriginalists Notes of Debates offered Ogden original understanding originalists political popular sovereignty positive law president principle of popular prohibited Proper Clause proposed provision question quoted ratified Rehnquist Republican Revolutionary ruling statement of Rep Sturges Supreme Court Thomas Jefferson unconstitutional University Press violated William York