Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3189086814> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 57 of
57
with 100 items per page.
- W3189086814 abstract "Virtually all constitutional scholars agree, and the Supreme Court has uniformly held, that our entire system of constitutional democracy is premised in important part on the dictate of judicial review, i.e., the power of the judiciary to exercise the final say as to the meaning of the provisions of the counter-majoritarian Constitution. Absent judicial review, the fundamental speed bumps to tyranny which the Framers so carefully inserted into our political structure would be rendered all but useless at best and a fraud on the electorate at worst. Yet puzzlingly, most of the very same scholars and judges assume that the remedies to be issued to enforce the judiciary’s interpretations of the Constitution are fully controlled by the very political branches which the Constitution is designed to restrain. Thus, all the political branches need do to avoid constitutional control is deny to the courts any power to enforce their decisions. Such a logically inconsistent dichotomy indirectly destroys the essence of the judicial review process that is so central to American constitutional democracy. Yet the respected constitutional scholars to have examined the issue of constitutional remedies seem not to have recognized either the serious logical flaw or the potentially grave practical dangers in vesting in the very branches sought to be controlled by the Constitution the final power to determine the scope — indeed, the existences — of remedies to enforce constitutional dictates. Nor has the Supreme Court acknowledged the unique nature of constitutional remedies. Instead, the Court has incorrectly deemed implied constitutional and statutory remedies to be coterminous as a matter of judicial power, when the fundamental elements of American political theory make clear that the two are completely distinct.In this Article, the author explains the inherent theoretical and practical link between constitutional review and constitutional remedies, demonstrating that full control of constitutional remedies belongs in the judiciary, not the political branches. He then explains how judicial inference of constitutional remedies in the face of textual silence on the issue can be justified by principled theories of textual interpretation." @default.
- W3189086814 created "2021-08-16" @default.
- W3189086814 creator A5065284834 @default.
- W3189086814 date "2020-01-01" @default.
- W3189086814 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
- W3189086814 title "Constitutional Remedies as Constitutional Law" @default.
- W3189086814 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3669110" @default.
- W3189086814 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
- W3189086814 type Work @default.
- W3189086814 sameAs 3189086814 @default.
- W3189086814 citedByCount "1" @default.
- W3189086814 countsByYear W31890868142019 @default.
- W3189086814 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W3189086814 hasAuthorship W3189086814A5065284834 @default.
- W3189086814 hasBestOaLocation W31890868142 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C126053111 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C2778428725 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C39376844 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C48764862 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C56720970 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C81819989 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C126053111 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C17744445 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C18650270 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C199539241 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C2776154427 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C2778272461 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C2778428725 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C39376844 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C48764862 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C56720970 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C81819989 @default.
- W3189086814 hasConceptScore W3189086814C94625758 @default.
- W3189086814 hasLocation W31890868141 @default.
- W3189086814 hasLocation W31890868142 @default.
- W3189086814 hasOpenAccess W3189086814 @default.
- W3189086814 hasPrimaryLocation W31890868141 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W12443136 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W13136029 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W18204331 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W18589545 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W21187062 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W22669 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W4535164 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W6614264 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W7167394 @default.
- W3189086814 hasRelatedWork W8706943 @default.
- W3189086814 isParatext "false" @default.
- W3189086814 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W3189086814 magId "3189086814" @default.
- W3189086814 workType "article" @default.