Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • Chapter 39 - The Justices and the Theories

  • from Section B: Civil Liberties after 1937
  • Mark V. Tushnet, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts
  • Book:
    The Hughes Court
    Published online:
    13 January 2022
    Print publication:
    03 February 2022, pp 1043-1059

  • Summary

    Before 1937 political scientists had begun to decribe the US political system as one of pluraism and interest groups. After 1937 some justices moved haltingly to write the theory of interest group plualism into constitutional theory in ways that would allow them to uphold economic regulation while taking a more active role in policing legislation dealing with civil liberties. To do so they had to develop an account of “fundamental rights” that were enforceable aagainst the states through the Due Process Clause.

  • Chapter 18 - Toward a Theory of Pluralism

  • from Section D: The New Constitutional Regime
  • Mark V. Tushnet, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts
  • Book:
    The Hughes Court
    Published online:
    13 January 2022
    Print publication:
    03 February 2022, pp 408-420

  • Summary

    This Chapter details the initial hints of a new account of constitutional review, examining in detail the development of and the theory underlying Justice Stone’s famous “Footnote Four” outlining the argument that Court should intervene only to enforce specific constitutional guarantees or to ensure that the political process was operating without impediment.