Howard Schweber – författare

This book explores two basic questions regarding constitutional theory. First, in view of a commitment to democratic self-rule and widespread disagreement on questions of value, how is the creation of a legitimate constitutional regime possible? Second, what must be true about a constitution if the regime that it supports is to retain its claim to legitimacy? Howard Schweber shows that the answers to these questions appear in a theory of constitutional language that combines democratic theory with constitutional philosophy. The creation of a legitimate constitutional regime depends on a shared commitment to a particular and specialized form of language. Out of this simple observation, Schweber develops arguments about the characteristics of constitutional language, the necessary differences between constitutional language and the language of ordinary law or morality, as well as the authority of officials such as judges to engage in constitutional review of laws.

This book is a comparative study of the American legal development in the mid-nineteenth century. Focusing on Illinois and Virginia, supported by observations from six additional states, the book traces the crucial formative moment in the development of an American system of common law in northern and southern courts. The process of legal development, and the form the basic analytical categories of American law came to have, are explained as the products of different responses to the challenge of new industrial technologies, particularly railroads. The nature of those responses was dictated by the ideologies that accompanied the social, political, and economic orders of the two regions. American common law, ultimately, is found to express an emerging model of citizenship, appropriate to modern conditions. As a result, the process of legal development provides an illuminating perspective on the character of American political thought in a formative period of the nation.

This book is a comparative study of the American legal development in the mid-nineteenth century. Focusing on Illinois and Virginia, supported by observations from six additional states, the book traces the crucial formative moment in the development of an American system of common law in northern and southern courts. The process of legal development, and the form the basic analytical categories of American law came to have, are explained as the products of different responses to the challenge of new industrial technologies, particularly railroads. The nature of those responses was dictated by the ideologies that accompanied the social, political, and economic orders of the two regions. American common law, ultimately, is found to express an emerging model of citizenship, appropriate to modern conditions. As a result, the process of legal development provides an illuminating perspective on the character of American political thought in a formative period of the nation.

This book explores two basic questions regarding constitutional theory. First, in view of a commitment to democratic self-rule and widespread disagreement on questions of value, how is the creation of a legitimate constitutional regime possible? Second, what must be true about a constitution if the regime that it supports is to retain its claim to legitimacy? Howard Schweber shows that the answers to these questions appear in a theory of constitutional language that combines democratic theory with constitutional philosophy. The creation of a legitimate constitutional regime depends on a shared commitment to a particular and specialized form of language. Out of this simple observation, Schweber develops arguments about the characteristics of constitutional language, the necessary differences between constitutional language and the language of ordinary law or morality, as well as the authority of officials such as judges to engage in constitutional review of laws.

In James Madison's Constitution, Eric T. Kasper and Howard Schweber have assembled a roster of ten prominent contributors to excavate Madison’s thinking about key concepts and issues over questions of what the Constitution requires, permits, and prohibits. Madison’s key role at the Constitution’s drafting was instrumental in forging the document into what it is today. In many areas, the modern Constitution still reflects Madison’s conception and design. In other areas, however, the Constitution as it emerged in a final text—and as it has been amended and interpreted to the present day—does not always conform to Madison’s vision. Nevertheless, examining Madison’s thinking across a range of constitutional issues has much to offer for understanding our nation’s primary governing document today. Indeed, there are great disagreements among jurists, policymakers, journalists, academics, and the general public about how to interpret the Constitution and what various clauses mean. Frequently, Madison is cited as a source on both sides of political, scholarly, and legal debates over the meaning of various constitutional provisions. CONTRIBUTORS: Jeff Broadwater, Paul Finkelman, Zachary K. German, Alan R. Gibson, Jack N. Rakove, David J. Siemers, Quentin P. Taylor, George Thomas, Lynn Uzzell, and Michael P. Zuckert

In James Madison's Constitution, Eric T. Kasper and Howard Schweber have assembled a roster of ten prominent contributors to excavate Madison’s thinking about key concepts and issues over questions of what the Constitution requires, permits, and prohibits. Madison’s key role at the Constitution’s drafting was instrumental in forging the document into what it is today. In many areas, the modern Constitution still reflects Madison’s conception and design. In other areas, however, the Constitution as it emerged in a final text—and as it has been amended and interpreted to the present day—does not always conform to Madison’s vision. Nevertheless, examining Madison’s thinking across a range of constitutional issues has much to offer for understanding our nation’s primary governing document today. Indeed, there are great disagreements among jurists, policymakers, journalists, academics, and the general public about how to interpret the Constitution and what various clauses mean. Frequently, Madison is cited as a source on both sides of political, scholarly, and legal debates over the meaning of various constitutional provisions. CONTRIBUTORS: Jeff Broadwater, Paul Finkelman, Zachary K. German, Alan R. Gibson, Jack N. Rakove, David J. Siemers, Quentin P. Taylor, George Thomas, Lynn Uzzell, and Michael P. Zuckert

Many hoped or feared that Antonin Scalia’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 1986 would guarantee a conservative counter-revolution that would reverse the liberal jurisprudence of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren and which was continued to some extent under the Burger Court though the influence of Justice William Brennan. In addition, President Reagan described Scalia’s nomination as part of a project to remake the role of the Court, promote an interpretive approach of originalism, and shift authority and discretion to the States. Yet by the time of his death in 2016 it was unclear to what extent Scalia had effected the legal, institutional, or political revolutions that had been anticipated. While the Court did move to the right doctrinally, and reversed or modified many Vinson-Warren-Burger precedents, Scalia’s influence on constitutional jurisprudence turned out to be far less than it could have been, and his ability to persuade other Justices to adopt his legal views—both substantively and methodologically—was less than many mainstream media accounts recognize. Scalia’s institutional and political legacies are similarly complex: he was neither as transformative a figure as some of his allies might have hoped nor so unimportant as some of his detractors might have wished. The fact that his death and the controversy surrounding his replacement is so intense speaks to the fragile legacy that Scalia really has had on the Supreme Court after 30 years. This book will assess Scalia’s legacy in an edited volume that assembles leading legal and political science scholars who will evaluate his impact across a range of jurisprudential, institutional, and political issues.

Written by notable scholars in political science and law, the chapters in SCOTUS 2023 present the details of each ruling, its meaning for constitutional debate, and its impact on public policy or partisan politics.

Each year, the Supreme Court of the United States announces new rulings with deep consequences for our lives. This seventh volume in Palgrave’s SCOTUS Decisions series explains and contextualizes the landmark cases of the US Supreme Court in the term ending 2024. With a close look at cases involving key issues and debates in American politics and society, SCOTUS 2024 tackles the Court's rulings on ballot access, executive immunity, access to mifepristone, funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Equal Protection clause and state redistricting, the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to levy civil penalties, the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer, the the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to reduce air pollution from power plants, and more. Written by notable scholars in political science and law, the chapters in SCOTUS 2024 present the details of each ruling, its meaning for constitutional debate, and its impact on public policy or partisan politics. Finally, SCOTUS 2024 analyzes ethics scandals on the Court and charts its shifts in ideology.

Each year, the Supreme Court of the United States announces new rulings with deep consequences for our lives. This eighth volume in Palgrave’s SCOTUS Decisions series explains and contextualizes the landmark cases of the US Supreme Court in the term ending 2025. With a close look at cases involving key issues and debates in American politics and society, SCOTUS 2025 tackles the Court's rulings on deportations of migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, whether lower-court judges have the authority to issue "universal injunctions," the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the right of parents to opt out of lessons they feel violate their free exercise of religion, and more. Written by leading scholars in political science and law, SCOTUS 2025 presents the details of each ruling, its meaning for constitutional debate, and its impact on public policy or partisan politics. Additionally, the book examines the question of whether the United States is in a state of constitutional crisis, relations between the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, and the expansion in the reliance on the "shadow docket" in the 2025 term.