pageok
pageok
pageok
Hamburger's Law & Judicial Duty. Part 4: Evidentiary Issues.

In my fourth selection from the introduction of Philip Hamburger's Law and Judicial Duty, Hamburger raises some of the evidentiary issues:

The judicial authorization of judicial review and its intimations of judicial power are only plausible because the most significant evidence appears to be missing. Although many cases of judicial review occurred after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the evidence of earlier cases seems weak. As Edward Corwin explains, "[t]he capital difficulty consists in the paucity of the evidence."

In fact, the problem is not so much evidentiary as conceptual. The trouble arises from the very notion of judicial review, which is a concept so tightly focused on modern concerns that it renders many of the early decisions almost irrelevant. If judicial review is today considered prototypically a review of legislation, then early decisions about executive and judicial acts do not appear very central. Similarly, if judicial review is associated with cases, then other types of decisions, such as resolutions and advisory opinions, seem anomalous.

The assumption that the historical inquiry must be a search for judicial review further narrows the evidence by reducing it to a matter of precedent. The difficulty of finding evidence of judicial review in the 1780s or earlier has appeared to suggest that the American judges must have subsequently developed this power, and it therefore seems necessary to find the precedents with which they established it. Many scholars therefore largely ignore the judicial determinations that were not cases, and on the assumption that judicial review could only have been established by the highest court of a state or the nation, the scholars even tend to discount state and especially lower court cases. Actually, the determinations of the most lowly of courts are the best evidence of what men took for granted, and one of the great pleasures of this study has been to locate some of these humble and therefore all the more revealing decisions. In pursuit of precedent, however, most commentators focus on familiar and elevated sources—on cases, federal courts, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court. . . .

All of these evidentiary problems (including the scarcity of precedents and the difficulty of sorting a limited number of cases) can be avoided here because, although the precedents for judicial review remain difficult to discern, the evidence about law and judicial duty turns out to be abundant. A simple shift in focus from judicial review to judicial duty is all that is necessary to bring the evidence into view. With this conceptual adjustment, what was previously little more than an evocative blur becomes an expansive and well-defined landscape, filled with vivid details. The evidence in such ways thus requires a change in paradigm—a return from the modern notion of judicial review back to the old, forgotten ideal of judicial duty.

The very label "judicial review" is misleading, for it suggests both too little and too much. Judges had an office or duty to decide in accord with the law of the land in all of their decisions, not merely when engaged in "review," and the phrase "judicial review" therefore describes only a fraction of the instances in which judges were bound by their duty and only some of the instances in which judges determined that customs or acts were unlawful. At the same time, the phrase suggests too much, for it alludes to judicial power without reference to judicial duty and thus lends itself to discussion of a power broader than the duty. In fact, although judges understood that in doing their duty, they enjoyed a power to enforce constitutions and protect rights, they ordinarily conceived of this power in terms of their duty and did not understand the power to extend any further.

A concept as familiar as judicial review may be difficult to put aside. Certainly, some readers will attempt to understand the argument here in terms of judicial review—as if the point were simply that judicial review was older and slightly different than usually assumed. The evidence, however, leads away from notions of judicial review, and to understand the history, it is necessary to follow the evidence.

Monday: Part 5: The Common Law Concepts of Law & Judicial Duty

Tritium (mail):
Where do I begin? In a country formed upon the Principles of Liberty, you might expect a natural respect for other Governments regardless of their Political Religion. You don't have to be a member of any party in order to agree on a solution to a problem, you just have to have a virtuous intent, and the road you construct will not matter, as long as you can walk a mile in the proverbial shoes of the equivalent political establishment affected by such actions.

The last 8-10 years have been more enlightening as to the nature and likely direction of the United States. I am disappointed that "Due Process" is considered a Privilege of the Individuals of a Ruling Nation, but no Sovereign Country is respected as an equal in what amounts to imperialistic bullying. The principles of "Due Process" shouldn't be limited to U.S. Citizens, but must be observed in every perceivable body, broken down to its most basic components. If you do not, then the word "Liberty" should not exist in your Constitution.

It should exist in each political body for all it's intents and purposes it would have been constituted for. Regardless of the form of Government that exists between the people and the political body that makes up their Country, the "Law of Nations" is indiscriminate on the subject. If you believe in Freedom, then you cannot honorably believe that overthrowing other government leaders is acceptable. Shouldn't the people that live under such a Government decide for themselves if they wish to establish Democracy? Should we overthrow the Pope because the Holy Roman Empire should have a separation of Church and State?

I believe the Civil War itself should not have gone to war in order to free a people from slavery. Only you can decide whether or not you should be involved in a revolution. Had the slave owners decided to slaughter every slave during the war, would you consider imposing your system of beliefs upon others? (Don't get me wrong, I do not believe slavery should exist in any place, and would do all that was in my power to put an end to such a practice, though not by force. Imposing democracy is no different than claiming the divine right to rule as King. If you truly wish to see freedom spread, then you must respect other established political bodies foreign to your own.

The truth becomes a question of Power. As citizens of a very powerful and influential country, we have become the despots others learn to hate. It isn't surprising they would wish us harm, as our past actions (regardless of stated intent) has resulted in death of family and friends. What good was the American Revolution if we assume the role of the British to all the independent "America's" in the World?

As a child I was proud to live in a country respecting freedom. As an adult, I find nothing more than ignorance and hypocrisy. The moment I realized what my country really stands for, was the moment I realized I would never be free.

If A = B, then A cannot do to B what A wouldn't want B to be able to do the same in return. It's the Law of Nature. It's the Law of Nations. It's the only Law that respects the true concept of Liberty. That is what the Supreme Court Justices have a duty to protect. Liberty. With no influence of wealth or power to affect their judgment or alter their perception.
12.6.2008 2:28pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.