The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power
2025. g. jūn. · Harvard University Press
E-grāmata
448
Lappuses
Rīki
info
shoppingmode54% cenas kritums šādā datumā: 16. okt.
Par šo e-grāmatu
A groundbreaking challenge to a core principle of constitutional law, arguing that congressional action is not limited by the legislative branch’s textually enumerated powers.
Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers, meaning that Congress can do what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to and nothing more. Yet Richard Primus contends that this longstanding orthodoxy—allegedly required by the text of the Constitution, the Framers’ vision, and the logic of federalism—is fundamentally flawed.
Through careful analysis of constitutional text and history, and of the structure of American federalism, The Oldest Constitutional Question builds a powerful argument for broad congressional authority. In particular, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. The Framers were more worried that the federal government might be fragile and anemic than that it would be overwhelmingly strong. Enumerating congressional powers is thus best understood as a way of ensuring that the federal legislature has an incontestable warrant to exercise the powers specified there, not as an exhaustive description of all that Congress can do.
In practice, the enumeration of powers does little to limit Congress. But most constitutional lawyers—including many Supreme Court justices—think this means something has gone wrong, such that the courts must aggressively strike down federal laws exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers. Primus’s meticulous examination explodes the prevailing view, revealing its underlying errors. The constitutional system does place limits on Congress, and crucially so, but the enumeration of powers is not, and never has been, a sensible means for creating and enforcing those limits.
Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers, meaning that Congress can do what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to and nothing more. Yet Richard Primus contends that this longstanding orthodoxy—allegedly required by the text of the Constitution, the Framers’ vision, and the logic of federalism—is fundamentally flawed.
Through careful analysis of constitutional text and history, and of the structure of American federalism, The Oldest Constitutional Question builds a powerful argument for broad congressional authority. In particular, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. The Framers were more worried that the federal government might be fragile and anemic than that it would be overwhelmingly strong. Enumerating congressional powers is thus best understood as a way of ensuring that the federal legislature has an incontestable warrant to exercise the powers specified there, not as an exhaustive description of all that Congress can do.
In practice, the enumeration of powers does little to limit Congress. But most constitutional lawyers—including many Supreme Court justices—think this means something has gone wrong, such that the courts must aggressively strike down federal laws exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers. Primus’s meticulous examination explodes the prevailing view, revealing its underlying errors. The constitutional system does place limits on Congress, and crucially so, but the enumeration of powers is not, and never has been, a sensible means for creating and enforcing those limits.
A groundbreaking challenge to a core principle of constitutional law, arguing that congressional action is not limited by the legislative branch’s textually enumerated powers.
Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers, mean...
Citas grāmatas
Par autoru
Richard Primus is Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor at the University of Michigan Law School. He clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the US Supreme Court and is the author of The American Language of Rights.
Richard Primus is Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor at the University of Michigan Law School. He clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the US Supreme Court and is the author of The American Language of Rights.
Novērtējiet šo e-grāmatu
Izsakiet savu viedokli!
Informācija lasīšanai
Viedtālruņi un planšetdatori
Instalējiet lietotni Google Play grāmatas Android ierīcēm un iPad planšetdatoriem/iPhone tālruņiem. Lietotne tiks automātiski sinhronizēta ar jūsu kontu un ļaus lasīt saturu tiešsaistē vai bezsaistē neatkarīgi no jūsu atrašanās vietas.
Klēpjdatori un galddatori
Varat klausīties pakalpojumā Google Play iegādātās audiogrāmatas, izmantojot datora tīmekļa pārlūkprogrammu.
E-lasītāji un citas ierīces
Lai lasītu grāmatas tādās elektroniskās tintes ierīcēs kā Kobo e-lasītāji, nepieciešams lejupielādēt failu un pārsūtīt to uz savu ierīci. Izpildiet palīdzības centrā sniegtos detalizētos norādījumus, lai pārsūtītu failus uz atbalstītiem e-lasītājiem.
