Douglas E Edlin
Biographic Data
| ID | 5696017 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Douglas E Edlin |
| GIVEN NAMES | Douglas E |
| FAMILY NAME | Edlin |
| SIGNATURE | EDLIN D E |
| AFFILIATIONS | Dickinson College |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-5379-2548 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 6 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 0 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 6 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2002 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2016 |
| H-INDEX | 0 |
The Rule of Recognition and the Rule of Law
As the ultimate rule of a legal system, a rule of recognition is sometimes viewed as the equivalent of a nation’s constitution. Theoretically and operatively, however, constitutions and rules of recognition are not, and cannot be, the same thing. By employing departmentalism—the theory that each branch of government has the authority to interpret its national constitution for itself—as a challenge to the respective rules of recognition in the Uni…
A Constitutional Right to Judicial Review
This Article examines legislative attempts to preclude judicial review through statutory provisions that purport to strip courts of their jurisdiction. At bottom, these “ouster clauses” raise serious questions about relationships among organs of government, judicial independence, and constitutionalism. By contrasting the basic principle of English constitutional law, parliamentary sovereignty, with a fundamental structural feature of the American…
Common Law Theory
In this book, legal scholars, philosophers, historians and political scientists from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States analyze the common law through three of its classic themes: rules, reasoning and constitutionalism. Their essays, specially commissioned for this volume, provide an opportunity for thinkers from different jurisdictions and disciplines to talk to each other and to their wider audience within …
Judicial Review without a Constitution
In the United States, judicial review is understood, since Marbury v. Madison (1803), as judicial evaluation of government action to ensure compliance with the Constitution. But before and after Marbury, state and federal courts developed and practiced a form of judicial review in which common law principles, along with or instead of a canonical document, were the foundational body of legal doctrine against which public actions were assessed. Thi…
From Ambiguity to Legality
The orthodox understanding of parliamentary sovereignty holds that English courts cannot review the constitutionality of parliamentary enactments. According to this view of English judicial authority, called the ultra vires doctrine, the courts may only review administrative actions to ensure that the agency acts in accordance with the authority delegated to it by Parliament. In doing so, the courts effectuate Parliament's implicit intention neve…
Rule Britannia
No prominent works on this page.
Rule Britannia
From Ambiguity to Legality
The orthodox understanding of parliamentary sovereignty holds that English courts cannot review the constitutionality of parliamentary enactments. According to this view of English judicial authority, called the ultra vires doctrine, the courts may only review administrative actions to ensure that the agency acts in accordance with the authority delegated to it by Parliament. In doing so, the courts effectuate Parliament's implicit intention neve…
Judicial Review without a Constitution
In the United States, judicial review is understood, since Marbury v. Madison (1803), as judicial evaluation of government action to ensure compliance with the Constitution. But before and after Marbury, state and federal courts developed and practiced a form of judicial review in which common law principles, along with or instead of a canonical document, were the foundational body of legal doctrine against which public actions were assessed. Thi…
Common Law Theory
In this book, legal scholars, philosophers, historians and political scientists from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States analyze the common law through three of its classic themes: rules, reasoning and constitutionalism. Their essays, specially commissioned for this volume, provide an opportunity for thinkers from different jurisdictions and disciplines to talk to each other and to their wider audience within …
A Constitutional Right to Judicial Review
This Article examines legislative attempts to preclude judicial review through statutory provisions that purport to strip courts of their jurisdiction. At bottom, these “ouster clauses” raise serious questions about relationships among organs of government, judicial independence, and constitutionalism. By contrasting the basic principle of English constitutional law, parliamentary sovereignty, with a fundamental structural feature of the American…
The Rule of Recognition and the Rule of Law
As the ultimate rule of a legal system, a rule of recognition is sometimes viewed as the equivalent of a nation’s constitution. Theoretically and operatively, however, constitutions and rules of recognition are not, and cannot be, the same thing. By employing departmentalism—the theory that each branch of government has the authority to interpret its national constitution for itself—as a challenge to the respective rules of recognition in the Uni…
Political science (6 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (5 works) · Law (5 works) · Politics (5 works) · Constitution (4 works) · Constitutionalism (3 works) · Democracy (3 works) · Judicial review (3 works) · Parliamentary sovereignty (3 works) · American Constitutional Law and Politics (2 works)