Constitutional Law in 1952–1953

1954 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-113
Author(s):  
David Fellman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Government Printing ◽  
American Constitution ◽  
American Government ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
History Of ◽  
Reference Service ◽  
The Government

There was no change in the personnel of the Supreme Court during the 1952 Term. But following the close of the Term, on September 8, 1953, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, who had been appointed to the Court by President Truman in 1946, died unexpectedly at the age of 63. To replace him President Eisenhower gave a recess appointment to Governor Earl Warren of California on October 2. The new Chief Justice was sworn in on October 5.Two important developments in the constitutional law field during the period under review occurred outside the Court. One was the publication by the Government Printing Office, in 1953, of a newly revised annotatedConstitution of the United States, prepared by the Legislative Reference Service under the editorship of Edward S. Corwin. The annotations come down to June 30, 1952. The last annotated Constitution was published in 1938 under the editorship of W. C. Gilbert. The new work, an ample book of about 1400 large pages, is indispensable for students of American government.Noteworthy also was the appearance of the first two volumes of William Winslow Crosskey's monumental study of the American Constitution, under the title ofPolitics and the Constitution in the History of the United States.

scholarly journals Book Review | George Will’s Conservatism and Democracy in Crisis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
James Madison ◽  
American Government ◽  
Federalist Papers ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Federalist Papers

Americans typically view the United States as a democracy and are rightly proud of that. Of course, as those of a more precise nature, along with smug college students enrolled in introductory American government classes, are quick to point out, the United States is technically a republic. This is a bit too clever by half since James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, defined a republic the way most people think of a democracy—a system of representative government with elections: “[The]… difference between a Democracy and a Republic are, first the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” What the framers thought of as democracy is today referred to as direct democracy, the belief that citizens should have more direct control over governing. The Athenian assembly was what the framers, Madison in particular, saw as the paragon of direct democracy—and as quite dangerous. While direct democracy has its champions, most Americans equate democracy with electing officials to do the business of government.

The History of the Department of State: VII

1911 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-432
Author(s):  
Gaillard Hunt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Provision ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government

Having considered in former numbers of this Journal the sometime and occasional duties of the Department, including among them certain contingent duties which it has never been called upon to perform, we may now advance to a consideration of its habitual functions.The organic act of the Department prescribed that the Secretary of State should keep “ the seal of the United States.” It is the mark of the supreme authority of the United States, and before the government went into operation under the Constitution, was in the custody of the Secretary of Congress, being used to verify all important acts, whether executive or legislative; but the debate on executive departments in the first constitutional congress indicated that Congress did not contemplate keeping the seal any longer, and thought it would necessarily pass to the custody of the Executive. The President did, in fact, take it under his control as soon as he assumed office and before legal provision had been made for it.

The President's Cabinet

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Fairlie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Institution ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Complete History

The recent publication, within a few months of each other, of two independent works on the President's cabinet serves to call attention to an important political institution in this country, which has hitherto failed to receive adequate recognition. Mr. Bryce has stated that, in the government of the United States, there is “no such thing as a cabinet in the English sense of the term;” and the larger part of his short chapter discusses what the President's cabinet is not rather than what it is. But if the cabinet in the United States is not the same thing as the British cabinet, it is a significant factor in the operation of the government deserving more consideration than it has received.Mr. Learned disclaims any attempt at a complete history of the cabinet; and, as indicated in the sub-title, presents a series of studies on the origin and formation of the cabinet—its anatomy rather than its functions. But in tracing the development of the composition of the cabinet, approximately half of the text is devoted to chapters on the origin and formation of the executive departments, whose heads have been added to the cabinet as first organized. A second series of studies on cabinet practices and personnel is expected to follow.

Constitutional Law in 1947–48: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1947

1949 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-308
Author(s):  
David Fellman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Decisions

There were no changes in the personnel of the Court during the 1947 term. The former Chief Justice, Charles Evans Hughes, Avho had retired from the Court on July 1, 1941, died on August 27, 1948. Justice Hughes had served on the Court from May 2, 1910, to June 10, 1916, and was appointed Chief Justice on February 13,1930, succeeding William Howard Taft. In characteristic fashion, the justices filed during the 1947 term a very large number of dissenting and concurring opinions liberally salted with spirited and often bitter judicial invective.

The Pet Banks in Jacksonian Politics and Finance, 1833–1841

1963 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry N. Scheiber
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Financial Policy ◽  
Andrew Jackson ◽  
Federal Funds ◽  
Political Role ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government

In September 1833, Andrew Jackson issued an executive order ending deposit of Federal funds in the Bank of the United States, which had been the government depository since 1817. The culmination of Jackson's long struggle with the Bank and its friends in Congress, this measure closed a chapter in the political history of the era. To the conservative Jacksonians, “victory over the Bank of the United States was a consummation” that freed the state banks and business enterprise from the control of a powerful and despised institution. To the radical, hard-money faction of the Democratic party, however, “removal of the deposits” (as the order was popularly termed) was merely a first step toward more fundamental reform—elimination of the monetary disturbances that they attributed to reliance on bank paper for the currency of the country. Because of this divergence of views, partisan and factional disputes over Jacksonian financial policy did not cease with victory over the Bank. Central to the continuing debate was the relationship of die Treasury Department to the group of state-chartered banks, usually called the “pet banks,” in which Federal funds were deposited after September 1833. My purpose here is to review Treasury operations in die period 1833–1841, to suggest the political role of die pet banks and the economic impact of financial policy in die administrations of Jackson and Van Buren.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven H. Steinmo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Tax Compliance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tax Revenue ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Political Cultures ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
Treat All

Why are some people more willing to pay their taxes than others? In some countries the government is able to collect more than 90% of the taxes it is owed, while in other countries more than 30% of tax revenue goes missing due to tax evasion. This book explores this question by examining the fiscal history of five different democratic nations: Sweden, Britain, Italy, the United States, and Romania. This chapter introduces the book and draws out the central themes introduced in the substantive chapters. Drawing on these rich historical chapters, the introduction shows that successful states have developed strong administrative capacities, treat all taxpayers fairly, and deliver value for the monies they collect. This chapter argues that differences in tax compliance across countries is not explained by different political cultures, but is instead explained by differences in the efficacy of state institutions and the ways they have interacted with their citizens.

Federalism, State Action, and “Critical Episodes” in the Growth of American Government: Reply to Ballard Campbell

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 579-582
Author(s):  
Robert Higgs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Government ◽  
State Action ◽  
Analytical Perspective ◽  
History Of

Ballard Campbell claims to have identified “flaws in [the] analytical perspective” I employed in Crisis and Leviathan (1987). My sins of omission, he alleges, arise from concentrating on the growth of federal economic powers, thereby losing sight of the various noneconomic dimensions of government and “ignoring the reality of federalism in the United States,” especially before 1930. The upshot is “an imbalance that distorts the history of American governance.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document