2002•Justice System JournalRequires access

New Judicial Thinking on Sovereignty and Federalism: American and Canadian Comparisons

Gerald Baier

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

This article surveys the development of new doctrines of federalism by the U.S. Supreme Court since the court decided Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). This period is notable for the emergence of diverging attitudes on sovereignty and the role of the states in American federalism. This article discusses the development of these contending models and recent developments in the jurisprudence of federalism by the Supreme Court of Canada. Recent Canadian decisions do not discuss sovereignty. Instead, the Canadian Court promotes a balanced view of federalism, which is particularly evident in Reference Re: Firearms Act (Can.). The Canadian Court's studious avoidance of a principled position may be more deceptive politics than that plied by the highly criticized American Court. More important, the Canadian experience, which patiently builds up doctrines around precedent rather than theory, may be an example for the American Court.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article surveys the development of new doctrines of federalism by the U.S. Supreme Court since the court decided Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). This period is notable for the emergence of diverging attitudes on sovereignty and the role of the states in American federalism. This article discusses the development of these contending models and recent developments in the jurisprudence of federalism by the Supreme Court of Canada. Recent Canadian decisions do not discuss sovereignty. Instead, the Canadian Court promotes a balanced view of federalism, which is particularly evident in Reference Re: Firearms Act (Can.). The Canadian Court's studious avoidance of a principled position may be more deceptive politics than that plied by the highly criticized American Court. More important, the Canadian experience, which patiently builds up doctrines around precedent rather than theory, may be an example for the American Court.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article surveys the development of new doctrines of federalism by the U.S. Supreme Court since the court decided Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). This period is notable for the emergence of diverging attitudes on sovereignty and the role of the states in American federalism. This article discusses the development of these contending models and recent developments in the jurisprudence of federalism by the Supreme Court of Canada. Recent Canadian decisions do not discuss sovereignty. Instead, the Canadian Court promotes a balanced view of federalism, which is particularly evident in Reference Re: Firearms Act (Can.). The Canadian Court's studious avoidance of a principled position may be more deceptive politics than that plied by the highly criticized American Court. More important, the Canadian experience, which patiently builds up doctrines around precedent rather than theory, may be an example for the American Court.

Key concepts: Federalism, Supreme court, Sovereignty, Dual federalism, Law, Political science, New Federalism, Jurisprudence

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
New Judicial Thinking on Sovereignty and Federalism: American and Canadian Comparisons — Research Paper | ScholarLens