DOCSLIB.ORG

The Locus of Sovereignty Judicial Review, Legislative Supremacy, and Federalism in the Constitutional Traditions of Canada and the United States Calvin R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Locus of Sovereignty Judicial Review, Legislative Supremacy, and Federalism in the Constitutional Traditions of Canada and the United States Calvin R University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1990 The Locus of Sovereignty Judicial Review, Legislative Supremacy, and Federalism in the Constitutional Traditions of Canada and the United States Calvin R. Massey UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Calvin R. Massey, The Locus of Sovereignty Judicial Review, Legislative Supremacy, and Federalism in the Constitutional Traditions of Canada and the United States, 1990 Duke Law Journal 1229 (1990). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1141 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LOCUS OF SOVEREIGNTY: JUDICIAL REVIEW, LEGISLATIVE SUPREMACY, AND FEDERALISM IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES CALVIN R. MASSEY* Introduction ................................................... 1230 I. Calhoun's Concurrent Majority and the Expediency of Sovereignty Doctrine in Antebellum America .............. 1242 A. The Alien and Sedition Acts .......................... 1242 B. The Hartford Convention and New England Secession ..1246 C. Northern Response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ....1247 D. Calhoun, Nullification, and the Concurrent Majority ...1248 II. The Development of Canadian Federalism: From Cartier to the Charter ............................................... 1255 A. Before Confederation: Two Cultures, One Sovereign ....1256 B. Confederation: Sir John A. Macdonald's Vision of Federalism ........................................... 1257 C. After Confederation: JudicialAllocation of the Powers of Government ....................................... 1259 1. "'A Matter of National Concern": The Intersection of Federaland ProvincialResidual Power .......... 1260 2. Emergency and the FederalResidual Power ........ 1261 3. The Return of a Broad National Dimensions Test ..1264 4. JudicialInterpretation and Shifts in the Baseline Presumption ...................................... 1265 D. Patriationand the Notwithstanding Clause.......... 1266 E. Quebec and the Notwithstanding Clause ............... 1268 * Associate Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings. B.A., 1969, Whitman Col- lege; M.B.A., 1971, Harvard University; J.D., 1974, Columbia University. I am grateful to the Roger J. Traynor Fund for a research grant which aided this study, to Professors Tom Barnes, Victor Jones, and the Canadian Studies group at the University of California, Berkeley, upon whom I inflicted an earlier version of this paper, to my colleagues Scott Sundby and Bill Wang, who sharp- ened some of my thinking, to Professors Alan Cairns and Ronald Watts, who reviewed and com- mented upon earlier drafts, and to the residents of Hornby Island, British Columbia, from whom I have gained invaluable insight into the Canadian national character. An earlier version was presented to the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States at its 1989 biennial meeting under the title "Meech Lake and Calhoun's 'Concurrent Majority.'" The errors and omissions are, of course, mine alone. 1229 1230 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1990:1229 F. Conclusion: The Effects of the Notwithstanding Clause. 1271 III. American Analogues to the Notwithstanding Power ........ 1272 A. State Legislative Override of ConstitutionalRights ...... 1273 1. Privacy and Abortion .............................. 1273 2. Free Speech and Obscenity ........................ 1275 3. Cruel, Unusual and CapitalPunishment ........... 1276 4. ProceduralDue Process ........................... 1279 5. Free Exercise of Religion .......................... 1283 6. A Concluding Thought on the State Override ....... 1284 B. Congressional Override of ConstitutionalRights ........ 1285 1. Congressional Power to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts .................................... 1286 2. CongressionalPower Under the Commerce Clause to Override ConstitutionalLimits ..................... 1291 3. CongressionalPower to Define ProceduralDue Process ........................................... 1293 4. Congressional Power to Amend the Constitution ..... 1295 5. A Concluding Thought on the Congressional Override .......................................... 1297 IV. Some Normative Observations about the Legislative Constitutional Override Power ............................. 1298 A. The FederalistConundrum ........................... 1299 B. The Conundrum of Judicial or Legislative Supremacy .. 1300 Conclusion ..................................................... 1309 INTRODUCTION Every federal system of government must grapple with the defining element of federalism-the apportionment of authority between the cen- tral government and the constituent elements that make up the federal arrangement. Every representative democracy committed to written constitutional limits upon legislative power must resolve the tension be- tween enforcement of those limits through the relatively unrepresentative institution of judicial review and reliance upon the self-restraint of legis- lators. The performance of these central tasks in the federal constitu- tional systems of Canada and the United States is a study in irony. The Canadian founders intended to create a strong central government with plenary authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the prov- inces.I By contrast, the American founders sought to create a central government supreme within certain delegated spheres, with the states left in possession of plenary authority over all matters not assigned to the 1. See infra notes 44-48 & 141-51 and accompanying text. Vol. 1990:1229] LOCUS OF SOVEREIGNTY 1231 central government. 2 Both countries have seen their original visions of federalism reversed. In the reversal, Canada implicitly adopted major aspects of the rejected American theory of federal union developed pri- marily by antebellum southerners, particularly John C. Calhoun.3 Judi- cial review of the constitutional legitimacy of legislative action has a long history in the United States, but judicial review with respect to a broad range of explicitly guaranteed constitutionally-based individual rights is less than a decade old in Canada. Although Americans debated but gen- erally accepted the legitimacy of judicial review, Canadians embraced the concept far more gingerly. Canadian visions of federalism and judicial review are vividly re- 4 flected in the "notwithstanding clause" of Canada's 1982 Constitution, which permits either Parliament or a provincial legislature to declare that its legislation supersedes the fundamental legal rights and freedoms 5 guaranteed under the Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2. It is, of course, always dangerous to generalize about original intentions. As Professor Powell has pointed out, one cannot assume that a consensus existed among the founders on any particular issue. Powell, Rulesfor Originalists,73 VA. L. REv. 659, 684 (1987). Nor is it possible to divine one single original meaning, for history often "justifies plausible but opposing interpreta- tions." Id. at 688. Given the sharp differences of opinion that quickly surfaced about the appropri- ate limits of federal power, it is evident that any consensus which existed evaporated like morning dew. Jefferson's and Hamilton's opinions provided to President Washington concerning the consti- tutionality of the first Bank of the United States furnish a clear illustration of these differences. See 19 T. JEFFERSON, THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 275-282 (J. Boyd ed. 1974); 3 A. HAMIL- TON, THE WORKS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 179 (H. Lodge ed. 1885). Moreover, there was hardly consensus on ratification of the Constitution. The votes in the important state ratifying con- ventions were close, and the delegates were selected in a fashion that biased the conventions toward ratification. See Massey, Federalism and Fundamental Rights: The Ninth Amendment, 38 HAS- TINGS L.J. 305, 307-09 (1987) [hereinafter Massey, Federalism]. Anti-ratification pressure spawned the first ten amendments, numbers nine and ten of which were attempts to limit the central govern- ment's power to invade unspecified individual liberties and to reserve to the states all residual sover- eignty not constitutionally delegated to the central government. See Massey, State Sovereignty and the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, 56 U. CHI. L. REv. 61 (1989); Massey, Antifederalism and the Ninth Amendment, 64 CHI.[-]KENT L. REv. 987 (1988) [hereinafter Massey, Antifederalism]. Given the divisions of opinion, about all we can be sure of is that some measure of agreement was mustered as to the text of the constitution. Even that agreement, however, is tempered by the feder- alist character of the 1787 text and the anti-federalist flavor of the 1791 amendments. 3. See infra notes 93-130 and accompanying text. 4. Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), ch. 11 [hereinafter CONSTrrUTION AcT, 1982]. By this Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, Canada obtained both a new Constitution and full legal authority to amend its Constitution without further approval of the U.K. parliament. 5. CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, pt. 1 of the CONSTrrUTION AcT, 1982
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agriculture in the Fredericksburg Area Harold J
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Master's Theses Student Research 6-1969 Agriculture in the Fredericksburg area Harold J. Muddiman Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Muddiman, Harold J., "Agriculture in the Fredericksburg area" (1969). Master's Theses. Paper 823. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AGRICULTURE IN THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA, 1800 TO 1840 BY HAROLD J. MUDDIMAN, JR. A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND IN CANDIDA CY FOR THE DEGREE OF MP.STER OF ARTS IN HISTORY JUNE 1969 _j- \.-'.' S I ,, I 1 \ f ! '• '\ ~ 4' ·.,; " '''"·. ·-' Approved: PREFACE I would like to express my appreciation for the invaluable advice of Dr. Joseph C. Robert in the preparation of this paper. Thanks also to my wife, Jane, for her help in gathering information from various county tax records. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS 1 Introduction Description of Agriculture in Virginia Tobacco Wheat Corn Cotton Flax, Hemp Livestock Landholdings II. PROBLEMS FOR THE FARMER . ' . 26 Slavery Overseer Transportation Tariff Emigration III. AGRICULTURAL REFORM 43 John Taylor of Caroline Diversified Farming Agricultural Societies Agricultural Journals Manures Crop Rotation Improved Agricultural Implements IV. CONCLUSION 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 VITA LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Tobacco Shipped From Fredericksburg and Nalmouth Warehouses, 1800-1824 .........
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and the Representation of Minority Interests
    DEMOCRACY AND THE REPRESENTATION OF MINORITY INTERESTS Richard H. Pildes, Professor of Law New York University School of Law 1. Theory . 2. Institutional Design. 1. Targeted Versus Universal Approaches . 2. B. Malleable Versus Entrenched Representational Structures. The issue of appropriate political representation of Aminority interests@ in democratic institutions raises complex questions of both democratic theory and institutional design. I will concentrate here primarily on the intriguing issues of institutional design, but those issues must first be framed by some consideration of the theoretical problems posed by how to conceive of Aminority interests@ within a democratic political system. 1. Theory . The theoretical problems arise because, absent a rule of unanimous agreement, democratic choice necessarily entails that there be political winners and losers. Individual rights guarantees can protect political minorities against certain, narrowly defined intrusions on aspects of personal autonomy, dignity, and self-definition that liberal societies have come to consider beyond the appropriate bounds of majoritarian control. But individual rights protections can do only limited work; most constitutional rights actively enforced by courts still take the form of negative liberties that create spheres of individual immunity. But protected spheres of immunity do little to ensure the affirmative interests of individuals in the political minority, either to have those interests fairly considered in democratic decisionmaking or, more aggressively, to have the substantive interests of political minorities actually realized in the making of public policy. Nor, to the extent that minority groups as such have political interests, such as in the preservation and creation of various cultural goods constitutive of the group=s identity, do individual rights protections typically afford protection for these kind of constitutive common goods.
    [Show full text]
  • "Bound Fast and Brought Under the Yokes": John Adams and the Regulation of Privacy at the Founding
    Fordham Law Review Volume 72 Issue 6 Article 3 2004 "Bound Fast and Brought Under the Yokes": John Adams and the Regulation of Privacy at the Founding Allison L. LaCroix Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Allison L. LaCroix, "Bound Fast and Brought Under the Yokes": John Adams and the Regulation of Privacy at the Founding, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 2331 (2004). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol72/iss6/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE "BOUND FAST AND BROUGHT UNDER THE YOKE": JOHN ADAMS AND THE REGULATION OF PRIVACY AT THE FOUNDING Alison L. LaCroix* The announcement of the United States Supreme Court in 1965 that a right to privacy existed, and that it predated the Bill of Rights, launched a historical and legal quest to sound the origins and extent of the right that has continued to the present day.' Legal scholars quickly grasped hold of the new star in the constitutional firmament, producing countless books and articles examining the caselaw pedigree and the potential scope of this right to privacy. Historians, however, have for the most part shied away from tracing the origins of the right to privacy, perhaps hoping to avoid the ignominy of practicing "law-office history."' Instead, some historians have engaged in subtle searches for markers of privacy-such as an emphasis on family,3 a notion of the home as an oasis,4 or a minimal * Doctoral candidate, Department of History, Harvard University.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Republicanism in John C. Calhoun's Speech on the Veto
    Papers & Publications: Interdisciplinary Journal of Undergraduate Research Volume 3 Article 8 2014 It’s Not About the Bank: Religious Republicanism in John C. Calhoun’s Speech on the Veto Power, February 28, 1842 Luke D. Christie Furman University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/papersandpubs Part of the Rhetoric Commons Recommended Citation Christie, Luke D. (2014) "It’s Not About the Bank: Religious Republicanism in John C. Calhoun’s Speech on the Veto Power, February 28, 1842," Papers & Publications: Interdisciplinary Journal of Undergraduate Research: Vol. 3 , Article 8. Available at: http://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/papersandpubs/vol3/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities (CURCA) at Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers & Publications: Interdisciplinary Journal of Undergraduate Research by an authorized editor of Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. It’s Not About the Bank: Religious Republicanism in John C. Calhoun’s Speech on the Veto Power, February 28, 1842 Acknowledgments Special thanks to Dr. Brandon Inabinet, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Furman University, for his guidance throughout the writing and revision processes. This article is available in Papers & Publications: Interdisciplinary Journal of Undergraduate Research: http://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/papersandpubs/vol3/iss1/8 In the second generation of the U.S. government’s leadership, at a time when the number of states in the union had more than doubled that of 1787, more territories were under consideration for statehood, and the founding fathers were no longer living to clarify the intentions of the Constitutional Convention’s attendees, there persisted a question of the extent to which the federal government should establish and maintain economic enterprises.
    [Show full text]
  • Disquisition on Government 373
    DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT 373 DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT JOHN C. CALHOUN (1782–1850) U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA (1832–1843, 1845–1850) The Calhouns arrived in America in 1733, part of the large migration from Scotland via Ulster. They eventually settled in the South Carolina highlands and were a large, influential clan by the time of Jefferson’s Presidency. John Caldwell Calhoun was born with brains, good looks, and a fierce will not uncommon among the men of the southern uplands. An old prayer in the region went, “Lord, grant that I may always be right, for You know I am hard to turn.” He transformed himself from a rough frontiersman into the model of a gentleman and aristocrat. Yale provided much of his formal education, classical and literary, but he became a political philosopher out of his determination to defend both South Carolina and the Union. Calhoun became one of America’s greatest public men. He served in the House, Senate, Cabinet, and Vice-Presidency over the course of thirty- nine years, during which time he saw the balance of power in the United States tip northward and toward the national government. He undertook to defend state sovereignty by defending the South, and to defend the South by defending slavery. To do this he knew he had to confront the dominant political faith of his age: Equality. Calhoun’s “disquisitions and discourses” were published the year after his death. In them he tried to solve the great problem of American political life: how to protect and preserve local (or regional) communities against centralized democratic power.
    [Show full text]
  • VOLUME XVL-NO. 39. MEDICAL. Fmml HAHRISONBURO, VA., THURSDAY JULY T, 1H81. Iieilfflsl, Neuralgia, Sciatica, Lumbago, Backache, S
    VOLUME XVL-NO. 39. HAHRISONBURO, VA., THURSDAY JULY T, 1H81. TERMS:—$2.()() A YEAH. MEDICAL. IFrom the Washington Sunday Herald.] of the North and South, and after the pas- Marshall Was the eldest son of Thomas What an immortal epitaph 1 It might vity, and control of men. He was six ground is that of the Wilderness, where have been added, that ho was the third times Speaker of the House of Representa- THE CLASSIC TBIAtiGLE. sage of the ordinance of secession by the Marshall, a tiative of Wales, and Mary Generals R. K. Leo and U. S. Grant crossed State of Virginia, and the organization of Keith. He entered the army of General President of the United States; Washing- tives; many years United States Senator, swords for the first time, for several days, BY BIXIK ORET. fhe Southern Confederacy, the Confederate Washington with his father, who wdd Col- ton's Secretary of State; Governor of Vir- and Secretary of State under tlio adminis- in May, 1864. flag, the emblem of a separate nationality onel of the 8d Virginia regimtntt; and ginia ; Minister to France; the piirclmscr of tration of John Quincy Adams. In this county was bora and reared Chas. fmml ■What 18 "7 As OUusie Triangle f" Wc and a dissevered union of the States, could served during a part of the war oh the Lonisiana; the destroyer of the Allen and Mr. Clay was the author of three compro- Fenton Mercer, a distinguished politician, will try and explain. To traverse it you be seen from the Capitol and White ftouso.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Rights in John Marshall's Virginia: the Case of Crenshaw and Crenshaw V
    UIC Law Review Volume 33 Issue 4 Article 22 Summer 2000 Property Rights in John Marshall's Virginia: The Case of Crenshaw and Crenshaw v. Slate River Company, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1175 (2000) J. Gordon Hylton Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Profession Commons, Legal Writing and Research Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation J. Gordon Hylton, Property Rights in John Marshall's Virginia: The Case of Crenshaw and Crenshaw v. Slate River Company, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1175 (2000) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol33/iss4/22 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROPERTY RIGHTS IN JOHN MARSHALL'S VIRGINIA: THE CASE OF CRENSHAW AND CRENSHAW V. SLATE RIVER COMPANY J. GORDON HYLTON* As Jim Ely has reminded us, historians have long associated John Marshall with the twin causes of constitutional nationalism and the protection of property rights.! However, it would be a mistake to assume that these two concepts were inseparable or that it was Marshall's embrace of both that set him apart from his opponents. Nowhere is the severability of the two propositions more apparent than with Marshall's critics in his home state of Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • For the Good of the Few: Defending the Freedom of the Press in Post-Revolutionary Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2003 For the Good of the Few: Defending the Freedom of the Press in Post-Revolutionary Virginia Emily Terese Peterson College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Journalism Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Peterson, Emily Terese, "For the Good of the Few: Defending the Freedom of the Press in Post- Revolutionary Virginia" (2003). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626416. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-0hcz-hr19 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOR THE GOOD OF THE FEW: DEFENDING THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN POST-REVOLUTIONARY VIRGINIA A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Emily T. Peterson May 2003 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of The requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Author Approved, May 2003 Robert Gross ChrtstophW Grasso Dale Hoak TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION: DEFINING EARLY AMERICAN PRESS LIBERTY 2 CHAPTER I. ‘USHACKLED, UNLIMITED, AND UNDEFINED:’ PRESS LIBERTY IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGIN A, 1776-1811 22 CHAPTER II.
    [Show full text]
  • Vita February 2004
    GORDON LLOYD VITA FEBRUARY 2004 Gordon Lloyd School of Public Policy 23924-A De Ville Way Pepperdine University Malibu, CA 90265 Malibu, CA 90263 310-456-8359 310-506-7602 [email protected] [email protected] Citizenship: U.S.A. FAX: 310-506-7120 CURRENT POSITION Professor of Public Policy, School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, 1998-present. John M. Olin Professor of Public Policy, 1999-2000. EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION Ph.D., Claremont Graduate School, Department of Government, 1973 (Distinction). M.A., Claremont Graduate School, Department of Government, 1968. University of Chicago, Department of Economics 1963-65, Summer 1967 (Completed coursework for Ph.D. and M.A. Thesis in Economics). B.A., McGill University, Montreal, Economics and Political Science, 1963 (Honors Program). Pre-University: 1946-1960, Trinidad, West Indies (Cambridge Ordinary and Advanced Levels). California Community College Instructor Credential: Economics and Government (Valid for life). TEACHING EXPERIENCE Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, 1997-present. Adjunct Professor of Political Science and Economics, San Bernardino Community College District, 1976- present. (Emphasis on Distance Education.) Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor of Government, University of Redlands, 1969-1998. Visiting Professor of Political Science, University of California, Riverside, Spring 1998. Visiting Professor of Political Science, California State University, San Bernardino, 1990-1992. Instructor in American History, Damien High
    [Show full text]
  • Bicameralism
    Bicameralism International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer 2 Bicameralism International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer 2 Elliot Bulmer © 2017 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) Second edition First published in 2014 by International IDEA International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. The electronic version of this publication is available under a Creative Commons Attribute-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence. You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the publication as well as to remix and adapt it, provided it is only for non-commercial purposes, that you appropriately attribute the publication, and that you distribute it under an identical licence. For more information on this licence visit the Creative Commons website: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/> International IDEA Strömsborg SE–103 34 Stockholm Sweden Telephone: +46 8 698 37 00 Email: [email protected] Website: <http://www.idea.int> Cover design: International IDEA Cover illustration: © 123RF, <http://www.123rf.com> Produced using Booktype: <https://booktype.pro> ISBN: 978-91-7671-107-1 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 Advantages of bicameralism.....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluate the Influence of Jacksonian Democracy on Political and Social Sectionalism in American Society from 1824 – 1860
    Historical Question: Evaluate the influence of Jacksonian Democracy on political and social sectionalism in American society from 1824 – 1860. Jacksonian Democracy DBQ DBQ Question: Evaluate the influence of Jacksonian Democracy on political and social sectionalism in American society from 1824 – 1860. Introduction to DBQ: The period in United States history commonly referred to as the period of “Jacksonian Democracy” proved to be a period of change in part through increased voter participation. It also proved to be a time when the federal government found itself at the forefront of implementing change regardless of how it affected various regions of our country. Many believe that this helped move us down the road of sectionalism and eventually into the Civil War. Historical Thinking Skills: To implement this DBQ activity, students will have to utilize several historical thinking skills. However, use your judgement as to how in-depth you want your student’s historical writing skills to be developed. The main difference between the College Prep and AP US History courses is in the way students approach the subject matter. In College Prep, students are expected to become proficient in their of knowledge of US History and how different events are interconnected, whereas AP US requires students to not only learn about the same events, but also encourages students to become “apprentice historians”. The primary means of attaining that goal is to get students to write like historians. 1. Causation: Thinking about causation involves the ability to identify, analyze, and evaluate relationships among many historical events as both causes and effects. Historians often try to distinguish between immediate, proximate, and long term-causes and effects.
    [Show full text]
  • President Thomas Jefferson V. Chief Justice John Marshall by Amanda
    A Thesis Entitled Struggle to Define the Power of the Court: President Thomas Jefferson v. Chief Justice John Marshall By Amanda Dennison Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Arts in History ________________________ Advisor: Diane Britton ________________________ Graduate School The University of Toledo August 2005 Copyright © 2005 This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. Acknowledgments Finishing this step of my academic career would not have been possible without the support from my mentors, family, and friends. My professors at the University of Toledo have supported me over the past three years and I thank them for their inspiration. I especially thank Professors Alfred Cave, Diane Britton, Ronald Lora, and Charles Glaab for reading my work, making corrections, and serving as advisors on my thesis committee. I am eternally grateful to the University of Toledo History Department for their financial and moral support. When I came to the University of Toledo, I would not have survived my first graduate seminar, let alone long enough to finish this project without the experience from my undergraduate career at Southwestern Oklahoma State University. I thank Professors Laura Endicott and John Hayden for their constant support, reading drafts, and offering suggestions and Professors Roger Bromert and David Hertzel for encouraging me via email and on my visits back to Southwestern. Ya’ll are the best. I have a wonderful support system from my family and friends, especially my parents and brother. Thank you Mom and Dad for your encouragement and love.
    [Show full text]