The Supreme Court and Partisan Realignment: A Macro- and Microlevel Perspective. By John B. Gates. Boulder: Westview, 1992. 253p. $55.00. - The Judicial Response to the New Deal: The U.S. Supreme Court and Economic Regulation, 1934–1936. By Richard A. Maidment. New York: Manchester University Press, 1992. 159p. $59.95.

1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 792-793
Author(s):  
Lee Epstein
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Economic Regulation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Partisan Realignment ◽  
The New Deal ◽  
The U.S

Unconstitutional Legislation by Congress

1945 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-61
Author(s):  
Oliver P. Field
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
South Dakota ◽  
North Dakota ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
New Hampshire ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The New Deal ◽  
General Period

The paragraphs that follow answer the same questions with respect to unconstitutional legislation by Congress that were answered with respect to unconstitutional legislation in the ten states (Colorado, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, and New York) included in my study published in 1943 under the title, Unconstitutional Legislation in Ten Selected States. The congressional statutes and the decisions of the Supreme Court analyzed herein are based upon the list found in Professor Charles Grove Haines, The Doctrine of American Judicial Supremacy. The reason why this list was chosen as the basis for analysis was that it covers approximately the same period, namely, from the beginnings to the early thirties, not including the period of the New Deal which formally began in 1933. This does not mean that there is no point in analyzing the later statutes and decisions, but that for purposes of comparison it was thought safer to restrict this analysis to the same general period for both state and national materials. The three cases under No. 1 in the Haines list have been omitted because no decrees based on invalidity followed their decision.

Realignment and Macropartisanship

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 953-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Meffert ◽  
Helmut Norpoth ◽  
Anirudh V. S. Ruhil
Keyword(s):  
New Deal ◽  
Time Series Data ◽  
Party Identification ◽  
Series Data ◽  
Presidential Approval ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Partisan Realignment ◽  
Electoral Equilibrium ◽  
The New Deal ◽  
The U.S

Aggregate party identification (macropartisanship) has exhibited substantial movement in the U.S. electorate over the last half century. We contend that a major key to that movement is a rare, massive, and enduring shift of the electoral equilibrium commonly known as a partisan realignment. The research, which is based on time-series data that employ the classic measurement of party identification, shows that the 1980 election triggered a systematic growth of Republican identification that cut deeply into the overwhelming Democratic lead dating back to the New Deal realignment. Although short-term fluctuations in macropartisanship are responsive to the elements of everyday politics, neither presidential approval nor consumer sentiment is found responsible for the 1980 shift.

The Mandate of the Ninth Amendment: Why Footnote Four Is Wrong

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy E. Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
New Deal ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Ninth Amendment ◽  
The New Deal

This chapter examines the revival of the presumption of constitutionality and its almost immediate qualification in the form of Footnote Four, which it argues is inconsistent with the Ninth Amendment. The era in which the Supreme Court attempted to scrutinize the necessity and propriety of state and federal restrictions on liberty came to a close as the perceived legitimacy of legislative activism continued to grow. The doctrinal vehicle used by the New Deal Court to overturn the Progressive Era precedents was the adoption of a presumption of constitutionality. The chapter first provides an overview of Footnote Four before discussing the Ninth Amendment, which mandates that unenumerated rights be treated the same as those that are listed. It shows that Footnote Four runs afoul of the text of the Constitution, and more specifically the Ninth Amendment.

Living without Labels

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T. Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Republican Party ◽  
Political Events ◽  
Sharp Criticism ◽  
The New Deal ◽  
History Books ◽  
Distinct Idea ◽  
The U.S

Charles Evans Hughes's career ran along the fault lines of most of the major political events of his lifetime. Muckraking catapulted him to fame. He governed New York during four key years of the Progressive era as an effective administrator and earnest reformer. He stayed with the Republican Party when the Progressives bolted in 1912. He ran for the presidency in 1916 but missed the prize, albeit by a narrower electoral college margin than any other contender until the very end of the century. He was instrumental in negotiating the international naval disarmament accords of 1921–22, landmarks of progressive internationalism in their day that fell under sharp criticism a decade later. He presided over the U.S. Supreme Court during the key years of the New Deal, though in most histories of the 1930s Court he comes across as something of an also-ran behind its more memorable shapers: Brandeis, Cardozo, Sutherland, Black, even Roberts. Hard to pin to any achievement or distinct idea, slipping in and out of the dramatic movements of his day, he was the kind of man who makes history but easily falls out of the history books.

The Supreme Court and Political Eras: A Perspective on Judicial Power in a Democratic Polity

1992 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-368
Author(s):  
John B. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Current Trend ◽  
Dominant Party ◽  
Democratic Polity ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The New Deal ◽  
The Normative Question

American political history is often conceived as a series of stable eras, controlled by dominant party coalitions and demarcated by realigning elections, most often identified as those of 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932. Since there is a lag in the corresponding reconstitution of the Supreme Court, it is often deemed a countermajoritarian drag on the workings of electoral democracy. An examination of judicial review in relation to political eras shows that view to be correct only in the New Deal era. Judicial review most commonly occurs within eras rather than across them, with a Court reconstituted by the prevailing coalition negating legislation passed by that coalition. This reality significantly alters the normative question of the Court's role in a democracy, and it raises questions about the concept of stable eras. The current trend of political party dealignment calls into question the continuing validity of the critical-elections approach.

The Supreme Court and the New Deal

Thought ◽  
1941 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 582-582
Author(s):  
Walter B. Kennedy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
New Deal ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The New Deal
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document