Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:55:25.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What's Old Is New Again: Political Science, Law, and Constitutional Meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2013

Robert J. Spitzer
Robert J. Spitzer*
Affiliation:
SUNY Cortland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political science and law intersect not only in the political world, but as disciplines. This is as it should be, and for two important reasons: disciplinary history and content. As Fisher (2009, 798) notes, the first political science graduate program, founded in 1880, studied “history, law, and philosophy.” The American Political Science Association, founded in 1903, defined itself in terms of six distinct areas of study, five of which—comparative legislation, international law, constitutional law, administrative law, and jurisprudence—were in some manner about law (798). In addition, law is the expression of authority by the state. Its formation, content, and consequences form the purest expression of governmental power through what we more comprehensively define today as public policy. Early in the history of our discipline, political scientists approached the law in a manner that was “legalistic, formalistic, conceptually barren and largely devoid of what would today be called empirical data” (Somit and Tannenhaus 1967, 69). That is, they approached it as did lawyers of the time. Yet as political science matured, those who studied public law ceased being merely “little lawyers,” vesting their work with no less respect for the content of law, but tempered also with the tools and perspectives of what was by now a distinct discipline. No early political scientist better exemplified this maturation than Edward Corwin, especially (although not exclusively) as reflected in his timeless study, The President: Office and Powers (1957).

Type
Symposium: Law and (Disciplinary) Order: A Dialogue about Louis Fisher, Constitutionalism, and Political Science
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 493 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baker, Nancy V. 2006. General Ashcroft. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Barilleaux, Ryan J., and Kelley, Christopher S., eds. 2010. The Unitary Executive and the Modern Presidency. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Phillip J. 2002. By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Cooper, Phillip J. 2005. “George W. Bush, Edgar Allen Poe, and the Use and Abuse of Presidential Signing Statements.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (September): 512–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corwin, Edward S. 1957. The President: Office and Powers, 4th ed. New York: NYU Press; first pub. 1940.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and King, Gary. 2002. “The Rules of Inference.” The University of Chicago Law Review 69 (Winter): 1–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Louis. 2000. “Unchecked Presidential Wars.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148 (May): 1637–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Louis. 2004a. The Politics of Executive Privilege. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, Louis. 2004b. Presidential War Power. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Fisher, Louis. 2006. “Lost Constitutional Moorings: Recovering the War Power.” Indiana Law Journal 91 (Fall): 1199–1254.Google Scholar
Fisher, Louis. 2009. “Political Scientists and the Public Law Tradition.” In The Oxford Handbook of the American Presidency, eds. Edwards, George C. II and Howell, William G., 797–815. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, Louis. 2010a. On Appreciating Congress: The People's Branch. Boulder. CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Fisher, Louis. 2010b. “The Unitary Executive and Inherent Executive Power.” Journal of Constitutional Law 12 (February): 569–91.Google Scholar
Fisher, Louis. 2011. “John Yoo and the Republic.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 41 (March): 177–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M. 2002. American Law in the 20th Century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gellman, Barton, and Becker, Jo. 2007. “The Cheney Vice Presidency: ‘A Different Understanding with the President.’” Washington Post, June 24, A1.Google Scholar
Golden, Tim. 2005. “A Junior Aide Had a Big Role in Terror Policy,” New York Times, December 23, A1.Google Scholar
Howell, William G. 2003. Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Christopher S. 2007. “The Law: Contextualizing the Signing Statement.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 37 (December): 737–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Alfred H. 1965. “Clio and the Court.” In The Supreme Court Review, ed. Kurland, Philip, 119–58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kronman, Anthony T. 1993. The Lost Lawyer: Failing Ideals of the Legal Profession. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lindgren, James. 1994. “An Author's Manifesto.” University of Chicago Law Review 61 (Spring): 527–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1992. “The State in Political Science: How We Become What We Study.” American Political Science Review 86 (March): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, Jane. 2005. “Outsourcing Torture.” The New Yorker, February 14. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6.Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard. 1990. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. New York: The Free Press; first pub. 1960.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe. 1906. “The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice.” Reports of the American Bar Association 29: 395–417.Google Scholar
Rozell, Mark. 2010. Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy, and Accountability. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Savage, Charlie. 2012. “Election Will Decide Future of Interrogation Methods for Terrorism Suspects,” New York Times, September 28, A13.Google Scholar
Sollenberger, Mitchel A., and Rozell, Mark J.. 2012. The President's Czars: Undermining Congress and the Constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Tannenhaus, Joseph. 1967. The Development of Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Spitzer, Robert J. 1988. The Presidential Veto: Touchstone of the American Presidency. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Spitzer, Robert J., ed. 2000. Politics and Constitutionalism: The Louis Fisher Connection. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Spitzer, Robert J. 2006. “The Commander in Chief: Power and Constitutional Invention in the Bush Administration.” In The Presidency and the Challenge of Democracy, eds. Genovese, Michael A. and Han, Lori Cox, 93–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, Robert J. 2008a. “Saving the Presidency from Lawyers.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 38 (June): 329–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, Robert J. 2008b. Saving the Constitution from Lawyers: How Legal Training and Law Reviews Distort Constitutional Meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, Robert J. 2012. “Growing Executive Power: The Strange Case of the ‘Protective Return’ Pocket Veto.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42 (September): 637–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swygert, Michael I., and Bruce, Jon W.. 1985. “The Historical Origins, Founding, and Early Development of Student-Edited Law Reviews.” The Hastings Law Journal 36 (May): 739–91.Google Scholar
“Writing for, and Publishing in Law Reviews.” 2012. Gallagher Law Library, University of Washington School of Law, last updated May 18, https://lib.law.washington.edu/content/guides/lawrevs-where.Google Scholar
Yoo, John. 1996. “The Continuation of Politics by Other Means: The Original Understanding of War Powers.” California Law Review 84 (March): 167–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar