Quoting a statement attributed to Woodrow Wilson, The history of liberty is the history of limitations upon the powers of government, Strong identifies and discusses the two methods for limiting governmental power which had evolved in the Western world: indirect limitations (in which the defining feature is one of checks and balances) and direct limitations (which has its origins in the conviction that there exists a higher law forbidding abuse of mortal power).He notes that the framers of the U.S. constitution chose the ...
Read More
Quoting a statement attributed to Woodrow Wilson, The history of liberty is the history of limitations upon the powers of government, Strong identifies and discusses the two methods for limiting governmental power which had evolved in the Western world: indirect limitations (in which the defining feature is one of checks and balances) and direct limitations (which has its origins in the conviction that there exists a higher law forbidding abuse of mortal power).He notes that the framers of the U.S. constitution chose the indirect method, in which the judiciary was assigned the function of reviewing the operation of the other two branches of government. He argues that judicial review was not meant to be constitutional review and that constitutional review could be properly invoked only if the legislative branch sought to oust the judicial from its assigned jurisdiction. Constitutional review could not be justified merely by reasoning that the Constitution was law and that courts were accustomed to interpreting laws. Strong contends that constitutional review was never intended and was not part of the constitutional design; its assumption was an act of judicial usurpation of power.This book questions whether, as our nation enters its third century, it is to be a constitutional government as the founders intended or a judicial dictatorship. Judge Robert Bork, in his newest book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, raises alarms; Professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas School of Law and Prof. Mary Glendon of the Harvard University Law School point to the enemy from within. Strong contends that this Imperial Judiciary threatens our very system of government.He urges majorrevisions in the judicial branch. There should be two high courts, each with its unique function, he argues. One, for judicial review, would be concerned with non-constitutional cases; the other would be restricted to constitutional litigation and its power to determine constitutionality would be reduced to that of advisory review.This book, by a well-known constitutional scholar whose career has spanned six decades of American legal thought, is both thoughtful and thought-provoking and will be must reading for anyone interest in the judiciary of the United States or the future of our government.e
Read Less
