FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1557598507> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1557598507 startingPage "811" @default.
• W1557598507 abstract "We are indebted to Professor Wood for a characteristically stimulating lecture.1 He has a gift for making history an intellectually exciting enterprise and a knack for drawing readers in and inviting us to join him on a voyage of discovery. He flatters his readers by making us feel smarter and more knowledgeable than we really are. He encourages the vain notion that we are equal partners in the quest for historical knowledge, participating with him in reading the sources, connecting disparate phenomena, and drawing certain inferences from the accumulated evidence. The logic and lucidity of his argument enable us to perceive the conclusion even before he formally announces it. We then feel as if we, not the author, have made the critical deduction and as if he is merely seconding our prior discovery. The extent to which Wood creates this illusion of the reader's smartness is a measure of his superb craftsmanship as a writer. In this lecture, as in all his writings, Wood is the consummate historian, wholly dedicated to the principles and values of a discipline that in its grandest aspirations seeks not merely to accumulate knowledge about the past but to promote historical-mindedness as a kind of epistemology, a way of understanding reality. Practically every word Wood writes defines what it means to be historically minded, a habit of mind that he acquired as a student of Bernard Bailyn. No one has done more than. Bailyn and Wood to educate their fellow historians and the general reading public in developing a sophisticated, historical cast of Mind.2 In revisiting the origins of judicial review, Wood has admirably performed the historian's job of clearing away a pervasive anachronism that has characterized much of the scholarship on judicial review and on the Marshall Court in general. We put too much emphasis on one celebrated case, Marbury v. Madison,' as the defining moment when the Supreme Court acquired the authority to strike down legislation as contrary to the Constitution. Further, we tend to regard the Marshall Court's practice of declaring laws unconstitutional as prefiguring the modem doctrine of judicial review, a practice whereby the Supreme Court exercises sweeping authority to decide the divisive political, social, and economic questions that dominate our public life. And we are too inclined to credit Chief Justice Marshall in his great nationalizing decisions as anticipating, if not actually creating, the regulatory nation-state that the United States has become. I am in such complete agreement with Professor Wood that I am hardpressed to offer a comment that goes beyond an affirming nod. My remarks accordingly will focus on the way a master historian goes about answering the perennially fascinating question of the origins and nature of judicial review. The traditional account, where it has gone beyond Marbury, has mainly consisted of collecting the so-called precedents of the 1780s and 1790s, along with quotations from the founders, such as Alexander Hamilton's famous No. 78 of The Federalist.4 Such evidence, while illuminating, is for Wood wholly unsatisfactory to explain something as significant and forbidding as judicial review.5 He proceeds on the sound assumption that the sources of judicial review had to flow from fundamental changes taking place in the Americans' ideas of government and law.6 In other words, what we have been accustomed to regard as causes or sources are in fact symptoms or effects of deeper underlying currents. Wood then identifies four fundamental alterations in people's thinking about government and law: (1) the redefinition of the of powers, by which judges gained a kind of equivalent status with legislators and executives as representatives or agents of the sovereign people; (2) the embodiment of fundamental law in written constitutions; (3) the legalization of fundamental law, the process that domesticated the Constitution so that it could run in the court system just like any ordinary law; and (4) the separation of law and politics. …" @default.
• W1557598507 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1557598507 creator A5013299743 @default.
• W1557598507 date "1999-07-01" @default.
• W1557598507 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1557598507 title "The Origins of Judicial Review: A Historian's Explanation" @default.
• W1557598507 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W1557598507 type Work @default.
• W1557598507 sameAs 1557598507 @default.
• W1557598507 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1557598507 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1557598507 hasAuthorship W1557598507A5013299743 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C107038049 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C111472728 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C138885662 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C144024400 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C17744445 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C185592680 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C199539241 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C554936623 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C55493867 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C95457728 @default.
• W1557598507 hasConceptScore W1557598507C98184364 @default.
• W1557598507 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1557598507 hasLocation W15575985071 @default.
• W1557598507 hasOpenAccess W1557598507 @default.
• W1557598507 hasPrimaryLocation W15575985071 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W1028228649 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W1968077421 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W1976904048 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2000424256 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2043745969 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2067152646 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2081056562 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2215797712 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2318779888 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2321123637 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2322962988 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2324204846 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2327520951 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W26315338 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W2737159756 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W293911728 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W3124459315 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W394476230 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W838360859 @default.
• W1557598507 hasRelatedWork W209588079 @default.
• W1557598507 hasVolume "56" @default.
• W1557598507 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1557598507 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1557598507 magId "1557598507" @default.
• W1557598507 workType "article" @default.