Judicial Power

Arguing that judicial review does not consist of the power to suspend or strike down legislation, but is instead akin to non-enforcement policy that lasts only so long as the court continues to maintain objections to the statute’s constitutionality.

Proposing the addition of a historical perspective to standing doctrine by incorporating the original meaning of Article III “Cases,” which would restrict standing to plaintiffs who have suffered a fortuitous violation of their federal legal rights.

Analyzing federal question jurisdiction from a neo-federalist viewpoint.

Arguing that judicial review stems not from Marbury v. Madison but from the original meaning of Article III’s text.

Analyzes the judicial power clause by looking to founding-era sources. Provides a detailed account of the clause’s development through the constitutional convention and how it was interpreted in early precedent.

Demonstrating how the Supreme Court’s decisions between 1815 and 1835 reveal an active reinterpretation of the Constitution and its principles of republicanism to suit the requirements of a rapidly changing nation.

Criticizing the oft-repeated dictum that a case does not arise under federal law unless it involves a disputed issue of federal law.

Explaining the concept of the federal question.

Outlining the historical origins of judicial review and the power of the Court to strike down legislation that violates the Federal Constitution (and various State constitutions).