[gutzmank]

One should begin with Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, then read Wood’s The Creation of the American Republic. My only problem with Wood’s body of work is that The Radicalism of the American Revolution is one long exercise in post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. His other books are generally excellent, and The Creaation… is essential.

[gutzmank]

In general, federal courts’ “standing” doctrine means no one can challenge most federal spending in court.

[gutzmank]

You’re entirely welcome.

[gutzmank]

I’m sorry we didn’t get back to you sooner. I’ve contented myself with the abridged version too.

[gutzmank]

I’m sorry to say that I don’t know much about him either.

[gutzmank]

I agree that it’s not clear what purpose is now served by having large residential areas in D.C.

[gutzmank]

Yes, state militia service was mandatory, but that’s a different issue. The fact that some states during the Revolution essentially conscripted people into state military units does not mean that the U.S. Constitution gives the Federal Government a conscription power. Absent a conscription power, the Tenth Amendment bans federal conscription. Tom and I have a chapter on this subject in our book Who Killed the Constitution? The two-year limitation means the Congress cannot raise a perpetual army, which was a European practice dangerous to parliaments’ power.

[gutzmank]

1) Barring particular contractual provisions ab initio is not the same as impairing the obligation of a valid contract; and
2) Chief Justice Taney’s reasoning was that denying people the right to take slaves into the territories denied them a property right without due process–although there was no contract at issue in the case. In other words, his ruling wasn’t about procedure, but about substance.

[gutzmank]

The term “Electoral College” has long been used in the U.S. Code in reference to the electors.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title3-section4&num=0&edition=prelim

[gutzmank]

If a president wants to repeal existing regulations, he generally has to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires him to post the regulatory change he wants to make, take public commentary for a set period of time, and then promulgate the new reg(s).

[gutzmank]

If the South had not seceded, slavery would have continued in the seceding states indefinitely. Abolitionists–people who wanted to use the Federal Government to get rid of slavery in, e.g., Alabama–were very few and unpopular, even in the north.

[gutzmank]

No, once a state is part of the union, it is bound by the Constitution of the union, which can be amended by either Article V processes.

[gutzmank]

I still haven’t seen it.

[gutzmank]

I understand him to have meant that the courts would have the final say in a particular legal dispute, but not when it came to, say, the text of the Constitution–which the Congress and states could alter.

[gutzmank]

The idea of this general forum is that people will answer it if they want to. As you may post any inquiry you’d like on any subject here, it’s not guaranteed that any of the faculty members will know answers to these questions. We do reply to questions posted in the forums related to specific courses.

[Author]

Posts