SUNY in American Constitutionalism

The first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay faced many unique challenges. When the stability and success of the new nation were far from certain, a body of federalized American law had to be created from scratch. In The First Chief Justice, New York State Appellate Judge Mark C. Dillon uncovers, for the first time, how Jay's personal, educational, and professional experiences-before, during, and after the Revolutionary War-shaped both the establishment of the first system of federal courts from 1789 to 1795 and Jay's approach to deciding the earliest cases heard by the Supreme Court. Dillon takes us on a fascinating journey of a task accomplished by constant travel on horseback to the nation's far reaches, with Jay adeptly handing the Washington administration, Congress, lawyers, politicians, and judicial colleagues. The book includes the fascinating history of each of the nine cases decided by Jay when he was Chief Justice, many of which have proven with time to have enduring historical significance. The First Chief Justice will appeal to anyone interested in the establishment of the US federal court system and early American history.

Examines how state courts change public policy through an analysis of their influence on state education finance reform. Power, Constraint, and Policy Change analyzes state court influence on state education finance reform. Beginning in the early 1970s litigants began filing suits in state courts to change state education funding in order to prevent disparities in education resources between wealthy and poor communities. These cases represent a fundamental policy debate in American society, pitting the importance of education against the cost and method of funding it. Through education finance, the authors explore how and why courts often end up determining and resolving policy funding debates. Education funding has involved both the federal constitution and state constitutions, as well as legislation and court-mandated remedies, which, ultimately, determine who and how we pay for this critical American value.

Examines how the president balances the competing demands of leading his political party and leading the nation. Throughout their time in office, American presidents are often forced to choose between leading the nation and leading their party. In an earlier time when the major parties were less polarized, this leadership dilemma, while challenging, was not nearly as vexing as it is today. American presidents now find themselves with little room to maneuver, compelled to serve the Constitution on the one hand and yet caught within bitter partisan disputes and large numbers of unaffiliated voters on the other. The contributors to this volume investigate how recent presidents have navigated these increasingly rocky political waters. Focusing on campaign strategy, presidential rhetoric, relations with Congress, domestic and foreign policy, The Presidential Leadership Dilemma presents a wide-ranging, detailed, and fascinating study of how contemporary presidents face the challenge at the heart of every presidency.

Examines the critical role assumed by the U. S. judiciary in balancing concerns about national security with the protection of liberty after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent responses by the U.S. federal government have raised fundamental questions about civil liberties in both domestic and international laws. As a result, the U.S. judiciary, out of its responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, has assumed a crucial role in defining boundaries of domestic and foreign policy, and in balancing concerns about security with the protection of liberty. Utilizing a sophisticated blend of quantitative and qualitative analysis, Kirk A. Randazzo examines two main questions: To what extent do federal judges defend liberty or champion security when adjudicating disputes? And to what extent does the hierarchal structure of the federal judiciary influence decisions by lower court judges? There are, he argues, disturbing indications that the federal judiciary as a whole are not defenders of liberty. Furthermore, lower court judges strategically anticipate the decisions of higher courts and constrain their behavior to avoid reversal. Kirk A. Randazzo is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of South Carolina.

A study of John Marshall's political thought with special emphasis on his views of constitutional legitimacy, sovereignty, citizenship, and national identity. John Marshall's Constitutionalism is an exploration of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's political thought. Often celebrated and occasionally derided as a force in the creation of American jurisprudence and the elevation of the American Supreme Court, Marshall is too seldom studied as a political thinker. Clyde H. Ray explores this neglected dimension of Marshall's thought by examining his constitutional theory in the context of several of his most important Supreme Court opinions, arguing that Marshall's political theory emphasized the federal Constitution's fundamental legitimacy; its sovereignty over national and state government policy; its importance in defining responsible citizenship; and its role in establishing a Constitution-based form of American nationalism. This cross-disciplinary argument illustrates Marshall's devotion to the Constitution as a new source of national identity during the early national period. Furthermore, Ray argues that Marshall's constitutionalism makes important contributions not only to our understanding of American constitutionalism during his time, but also conveys important lessons for readers seeking a better understanding of the Constitution's role in the United States today. Clyde H. Ray is a Philadelphia-based writer and scholar of political theory.

Analysis of concurrent opinion writing by Supreme Court justices. When justices write or join a concurring opinion, they demonstrate their preferences over substantive legal rules. Concurrences provide a way for justices to express their views about the law, to engage in a dialogue of law with each other, the legal community, the public, and Congress. This important study is the first systematic examination of the content of Supreme Court concurrences. While previous work on Supreme Court decision making focuses solely on the outcome of cases, Pamela C. Corley tackles the content of Supreme Court concurring opinions to show the reasoning behind each justice's decision. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis, Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court offers a rich and detailed portrait of judicial decision making by studying the process of opinion writing and the formation of legal doctrine through the unique lens of concurrences. Pamela C. Corley is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University. Pamela C. Corley is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University.

Traces the US Supreme Court's effect on federal government growth from the founding era forward. This book explores the US Supreme Court's impact on the constitutional development of the federal government from the founding era forward. The author's research is based on an original database of several hundred landmark decisions compiled from constitutional law casebooks and treatises published between 1822 and 2010. By rigorously and systematically interpreting these decisions, he determines the extent to which the court advanced and consolidated national governing authority. The result is a portrait of how the high court, regardless of constitutional issue and ideology, persistently expanded the reach and scope of the federal government.

Examines the significant gaps between what New York State's constitution says and how the state is actually governed and offers ideas for reform. On its face, New York State's constitution is an elaborate and impressive aggregation of processes, powers, mandates, and limits. But many of these are "inoperative," and New Yorkers who read the document and believe what it says will come away with a massive misunderstanding of the realities of state government. The essays in New York's Broken Constitution seek to clarify the realities by bringing attention to the gaps between what the constitution says and how the state is actually governed, and they provide a disquieting picture of the state of the state's constitution. Among the topics addressed are state debt and budgeting practices, legislative redistricting, local government, gambling, conservation, and the process of amending the constitution. Written by knowledgeable professionals, the chapters explain the constitutional provisions in question, including the reasons for their constitutional status; how they have been used and interpreted; and the extent of the gaps between the constitutional provisions and practice. Various proposals for reform are also examined.

Innovative examination of the tensions between universal and more uniquely American definitions of cherished rights. Are constitutional rights based exclusively in uniquely American considerations, or are they based at least in part on principles that transcend the boundaries of any particular country, such as the requirements of freedom or dignity? By viewing constitutional law through the prism of this fundamental question, Universal Rights and the Constitution exposes an overlooked difficulty with opinions rendered by the Supreme Court, namely, an inherent ambiguity about the kinds of arguments that count in constitutional interpretation, which weakens the foundations of our most cherished rights. Rejecting current debates over constitutional interpretation as flawed, Stephen A. Simon offers an innovative framework designed to provide clearer foundations for rights interpretations while preserving a meaningful but limited role for universal arguments. He reveals the vital connections among contemporary debates over such matters as the right to privacy, the constitutionality of the death penalty, and the role of foreign law in constitutional interpretation.

Examines how the Supreme Court has banished free expression from shopping malls and other public spaces. In spite of their public attractions and millions of visitors, most shopping malls are now off-limits to free speech and expressive activity. The same may be said about many other public spaces and marketplaces in American cities and suburbs, leaving scholars and other observers to wonder where civic engagement is lawfully permitted in the United States. In Public Spaces, Marketplaces, and the Constitution, Anthony Maniscalco draws on key legal decisions, social theory, and urban history to demonstrate that public spaces have been split apart from First Amendment protections, while the expression of political ideas has been excluded from privately owned, publicly accessible malls. Today, the traditional indoor suburban shopping mall, that icon of modern American capitalism and culture, is being replaced by outdoor retail centers. Yet the law and courts have been slow to catch up. Maniscalco argues that scholars, students, and the public must confront these innovations in commercial design and consumer practices, as well as what they portend for contemporary metropolitan America and its civic spaces.

Leading scholars and legal practitioners explore constitutional, legal, and philosophical topics. In Constitutionalism, Executive Power, and the Spirit of Moderation, contributors ranging from scholars to practitioners in the federal executive and judicial branches blend philosophical and political modes of analysis to examine a variety of constitutional, legal, and philosophical topics. Part 1, "The Role of Courts in Constitutional Democracy," analyzes the proper functions and limits of the judiciary and judicial decision making in constitutional government. Part 2, "Law and Executive Authority," reflects on the tensions between constitutionalism and presidential leadership in both domestic and international arenas. Part 3, "Liberal Education, Constitutionalism, and Philosophic Moderation," shifts the focus to the relationship between constitutionalism and political philosophy, and especially to the modern modes of philosophy that most directly influenced the American Founders. A valuable resource for specialists, the book also will be of use in political science and law school classes. Giorgi Areshidze is Assistant Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College. Paul O. Carrese is Professor and Director of the US Air Force Academy Scholars Program and the author of The Cloaking of Power: Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the Rise of Judicial Activism. Suzanna Sherry is Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University. Her books include Judgment Calls: Principle and Politics in Constitutional Law (coauthored with Daniel A. Farber).

Argues that impeachment may no longer be an effective check on overreach by American presidents. The Politics of Presidential Impeachment takes a distinctive and fresh look at the impeachment provision of the US Constitution. Instead of studying it from a legal-constitutional perspective, the authors use a social science approach incorporating extensive case studies and quantitative analysis. Focusing on four presidents who faced impeachment processes-Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton-they examine the conditions under which presidential impeachment is likely to occur and argue that partisanship and the evolving relationship between Congress and the president determine its effectiveness as an institutional constraint. They find that, in our contemporary political context, the propensity of Congress to utilize the impeachment tool is more likely, but given the state of heightened partisanship, impeachment is less likely to result in removal of a president. The authors conclude that impeachment is no longer a credible threat and thus no longer an effective tool in the arsenal of checks and balances. The book also offers a postscript that discusses the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. Daniel P. Franklin is Associate Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Georgia State University and author of Pitiful Giants: Presidents in Their Final Terms. Stanley M. Caress (1951—2016) was Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of West Georgia and coauthor (with Todd T. Kunioka) of Term Limits and Their Consequences: The Aftermath of Legislative Reform, also published by SUNY Press. Robert M. Sanders is Professor of Political Science at the University of West Georgia. Cole D. Taratoot received his PhD in political science from Georgia State University.

Collection of quotations and judicial opinions of federal appellate judge Richard A. Posner A collection of pithy and penetrating observations and rulings by one of the most famous appellate judges in America, The Quotable Judge Posner showcases the wit and wisdom of Richard A. Posner. During his more than twenty-five years as a federal appellate judge, Judge Posner reached over 2,000 opinions, many of which, are cited frequently in the opinions of Supreme Court Justices. This anthology presents the judge's entertaining and insightful observations on fifty wide-ranging topics, from Abortion to Telecommunications to Zoning and Planning. Law students who have encountered Judge Posner's judicial opinions will benefit from this collection, as will general readers who will enjoy Posner's trenchant comments on American society, constitutional norms, and legal culture.

Examines the causes and consequences of recusal behavior on the US Supreme Court. Do US Supreme Court justices withdraw from cases when they are supposed to? What happens when the Court is down a member? In Ethics and Accountability on the US Supreme Court, Robert J. Hume provides the first comprehensive examination of the causes and consequences of recusal behavior on the Supreme Court. Using original data, and with rich attention to historical detail including media commentary about recusals, he systematically analyzes the factors that influence Supreme Court recusal, a process which has so far been shrouded in secrecy. It is revealed that justices do not strictly follow the recusal guidelines set by Congress, but at the same time they do not ignore these rules. Overall, justices are selective in their compliance with the recusal statute, balancing ethical considerations against other institutional and policy goals, such as the duty to sit. However, the book also concludes that the impact of recusals on policymaking is more limited than commentators have claimed, raising questions about whether ethics reform is really needed at this time. Robert J. Hume is Professor of Political Science at Fordham University. He is the author of Courthouse Democracy and Minority Rights: Same-Sex Marriage in the States and How Courts Impact Federal Administrative Behavior.

Examines and measures the extent to which statutory language affects judicial behavior. How does the language of legislative statutes affect judicial behavior? Scholars of the judiciary have rarely studied this question despite statutes being, theoretically, the primary opportunity for legislatures to ensure that those individuals who interpret the law will follow their preferences. In Checking the Courts, Kirk A. Randazzo and Richard W. Waterman offer a model that integrates ideological and legal factors through an empirical measure of statutory discretion. The model is tested across multiple judicial institutions, at both the federal and state levels, and reveals that judges are influenced by the levels of discretion afforded in the legislative statutes. In those cases where lawmakers have clear policy preferences, legislation encourages judges to strictly interpret the plain meaning of the law. Conversely, if policy preferences are unclear, legislation leaves open the possibility that judges will make decisions based on their own ideological policy preferences. Checking the Courts thus provides us with a better understanding of the dynamic interplay between law and ideology.

Free Speech and Incitement in the Twenty-First Century explores the line between free speech and incitement, which is a form of expression not protected by the First Amendment. Incitement occurs when a person intentionally provokes their audience to engage in illegal or violent action that is likely to, or will, occur imminently. This doctrine evolved from World War I through the Cold War and the civil rights movement era, culminating in a test announced by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Since the 1970s, this doctrine has remained largely unchanged by the Supreme Court and, as such, has received relatively little academic or media attention. Since the late 2010s, however, violence at political rallies, armed protests around Confederate statues, social unrest associated with demonstrations against police, and an attack on the US Capitol have led to new incitement cases in the lower courts and an opportunity to examine how incitement is defined and applied. Authors from different perspectives in Free Speech and Incitement in the Twenty-First Century help the reader understand the difference between free speech and incitement.

While the rise of autocratic presidential powers has been widely noted by scholars in recent years, with calls by some for a stronger or more accountable presidency, Constitutional Ambiguity and the Interpretation of Presidential Power is among the first entirely dedicated to a study of the impact of this ambiguity on how scholars, judges, and presidents have understood executive power. Embarking on a detailed examination of legal, historical, and political science literature across the broad scope of American history, Richard W. Waterman examines the concerns of the Constitution's Framers regarding the fear of monarchy and a tyrannical president. He then discusses the writing and ratification of the Constitution and by drawing on insights from the time of the Framers to the present day, he provides a unique historical timeline related to the discussion and analysis of constitutional ambiguity. Over the course of several chapters, he finds that no sole theory defines presidential power, and ambiguity rules the day, allowing presidents to find power in the Constitution's silences as well as its various nooks and crannies, which has led to the very real danger of an autocratic presidency.