The debate arose over the fundamental question of the source of federal sovereignty. Did the Union derive its authority from the states, or the people acting through the states, or the people acting directly, or from its predecessor (the Confederation or the British Crown)? Historians have drawn the connection between the Republican and Federalist sides of this debate to the older Country and Court parties of eighteenth-century English politics, but it is Powell who, with characteristic legal insight, links this debate with the choice of constitutional interpretive modes. Republican partisans campaigned for a stringently textual approach to constitutional interpretation, construing grants of congressional authority narrowly vis-à-vis the states and more broadly against the Executive.
Evidence
The debate arose over the fundamental question of the source of federal sovereignty. Did the Union derive its authority from the states, or the people acting through the states, or the people acting directly, or from its predecessor (the Confederation or the British Crown)? … Historians have drawn the connection between the Republican and Federalist sides of this debate to the older Country and Court parties of eighteenth-century English politics, but it is Powell who, with characteristic legal insight, links this debate with the choice of constitutional interpretive modes. Republican partisans campaigned for a stringently textual approach to constitutional interpretation, construing grants of congressional authority narrowly vis-Avis the states and more broadly against the Executive. — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 192 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
How would an historical fact simpliciter confer constitutional status on a proposition entirely apart from any legal basis? If it means that the Justices may have been motivated by the importance of the freedom to travel to the American experience, I imagine this may have been so (although consistency with “absent forensic evidence” moves again close to the mystery genre). But the relevance of this point depends upon confusing motivation with causality. The mere wish to celebrate interstate travel does not write an opinion. — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 807 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
In the law, our major proposition—called the major premise—must usually have the hallmark of legal authority, constitutional text, statute or case law. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242 (
#expands, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: The 1798 constitutional debate hinged on the source of federal sovereignty. — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 192; Motivation for a ruling must be distinguished from constitutional causality — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 807; Legal major premises derive authority from constitutional text or statutes — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242 (+4 more)
Related
- The 1798 constitutional debate hinged on the source of federal sovereignty. (similarity 0.90)
- Motivation for a ruling must be distinguished from constitutional causality (similarity 0.83)
- Early American jurisdiction disputes were battles between nationalists and states’ rights advocates. (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- The 1798 constitutional debate hinged on the source of federal sovereignty.
#corroborates(0.85) — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 192 - Motivation for a ruling must be distinguished from constitutional causality
#corroborates(0.30) — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 807 - Legal major premises derive authority from constitutional text or statutes
#expands(0.30) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242