Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

CHOICE Review

Clinton has carried to new heights the debate over the place of judicial review in the American constitutional system. In a clearly stated argument, supported with extensive notes, full bibliography, and index, he argues for one simple thesis: that the framers of the Constitution as well as Chief Justice John Marshall understood the power of judicial review of legislation to extend no further than review of acts which "contravene constitutional restrictions on judicial power." An argument for what Clinton calls "functional coordinate review," or a variant of departmental review as opposed to judicial supremacy, the work offers an extensive commentary on Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the case in which it is often alleged (erroneously) that the power of judicial review was first claimed and exercised. Much of the remainder of the book is devoted to tracing the full development of the "Marbury Myth" in post-Civil War jurisprudence and scholarship. A stimulating and surely a controversial work--in effect, a searching evaluation of court opinion and scholarly writing on judicial review, judicial activism, and the fusion of law and politics said to characterize contemporary American jurisprudence. Strongly recommended for all general college and university collections. -L. Weinstein, Smith College