Madison v. Marshall: Popular Sovereignty, Natural Law, and the United States Constitution

by Guy Padula

Overview

Popular Sovereignty or Natural Law? At a time of constitutional crisis in the American body politic, Guy Padula's timely and stimulating new work explores whether the answers to today's heated political debate can be found by scrutinizing the past. In Madison v. Marshall Padula turns the spotlight on the interpretive intent of America's Founding Fathers to discover if the consent of the people or the rule of justice triumphs. Comparing the constitutional theories of the Founding generation's two preeminent constitutional authorities, Padula shatters the Originalist myth that Madison and Marshall shared a compatible constitutional jurisprudence. He concludes that the meaning of the Constitution has been contested from the outset. This is essential reading for legal scholars, political scientists and historians seeking to learn more about the fundamental nature of U.S. law and how it should be interpreted.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780739102602
Publisher:	Bloomsbury Academic
Publication date:	09/12/2001
Pages:	208
Product dimensions:	6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.62(d)

About the Author

Guy Padula received his Ph.D. from The City University of New York. He is currently attending Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 All Countries Have Some Form of Government
Chapter 2 The Poisonous Tendency of Precedents of Usurpation
Chapter 3 We the People: An Assembly of Demigods
Chapter 4 Colonel H. Deserted Me
Chapter 5 I Believe I Must Nominate You
Chapter 6 Never Give Him An Affirmative Answer
Chapter 7 We Start With First Principles
Chapter 8 Conclusion: The Mystery of Things

Editorial Reviews

The volume is therefore a very welcome and provocative contribution to the discussion over whether the founding generation favored a constitutional jurisprudence of 'original intent' or one based on the application of universal principles of justice.--Philippa Strum, The City University of New York

How should the U.S. Constitution be interpreted? Padula demonstrates that the two authorities at the time of the founding of the Republic, James Madison and John Marshall, could hardly agree whether the Constitution's meaning is fixed once and for all or remains subject to change in response to new developments. This learned and insightful book is a valuable resource for citizens as well as scholars.--John Patrick Diggins, The City University of New York

In Madison v. Marshall Guy Padula has written with great erudition and lucidity about two fundamental approaches to constitutional interpretation developed by the Founders. His book will stimulate new ways of thinking about 'originalist' interpretations and can help our own generation think through the questions of constitutional meaning and the role of the courts in shaping it.--Richard M. Pious, Barnard College

From the Publisher

The volume is therefore a very welcome and provocative contribution to the discussion over whether the founding generation favored a constitutional jurisprudence of 'original intent' or one based on the application of universal principles of justice.

Philippa Strum

In Madison v. Marshall Guy Padula has written with great erudition and lucidity about two fundamental approaches to constitutional interpretation developed by the Founders. His book will stimulate new ways of thinking about 'originalist' interpretations and can help our own generation think through the questions of constitutional meaning and the role of the courts in shaping it.

Richard M. Pious

How should the U.S. Constitution be interpreted? Padula demonstrates that the two authorities at the time of the founding of the Republic, James Madison and John Marshall, could hardly agree whether the Constitution's meaning is fixed once and for all or remains subject to change in response to new developments. This learned and insightful book is a valuable resource for citizens as well as scholars.

John Patrick Diggins