2013•Oxford University Press eBooksRequires access

The Courts and a Bill of Rights

David Brian Robertson

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The delegates were willing to invest the national courts with more independence so that the judiciary could serve as an additional check on other institutions. Broad nationalists wanted a strong system of national courts that could establish a presence across the nation. But narrow nationalists resisted this idea, because if the national court system included courts located in the states, these courts could draw power away from the existing state judicial systems. The delegates evaded this problem by allowing Congress to decide the issue. They gradually allowed room for the courts to exercise judicial review but refused to allow Supreme Court justices to participate in vetoing legislation. The delegates compromised on appointments, requiring the president and the Senate to share this power. The Convention banned ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, and protected habeas corpus. But it refused add a more comprehensive Bill of Rights.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The delegates were willing to invest the national courts with more independence so that the judiciary could serve as an additional check on other institutions. Broad nationalists wanted a strong system of national courts that could establish a presence across the nation. But narrow nationalists resisted this idea, because if the national court system included courts located in the states, these courts could draw power away from the existing state judicial systems. The delegates evaded this problem by allowing Congress to decide the issue. They gradually allowed room for the courts to exercise judicial review but refused to allow Supreme Court justices to participate in vetoing legislation. The delegates compromised on appointments, requiring the president and the Senate to share this power. The Convention banned ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, and protected habeas corpus. But it refused add a more comprehensive Bill of Rights.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

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

The delegates were willing to invest the national courts with more independence so that the judiciary could serve as an additional check on other institutions. Broad nationalists wanted a strong system of national courts that could establish a presence across the nation. But narrow nationalists resisted this idea, because if the national court system included courts located in the states, these courts could draw power away from the existing state judicial systems. The delegates evaded this problem by allowing Congress to decide the issue. They gradually allowed room for the courts to exercise judicial review but refused to allow Supreme Court justices to participate in vetoing legislation. The delegates compromised on appointments, requiring the president and the Senate to share this power. The Convention banned ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, and protected habeas corpus. But it refused add a more comprehensive Bill of Rights.

Key concepts: Law, Political science, Judicial independence, Supreme court, Habeas corpus, Bill of rights, State (computer science), Legislation

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Courts and a Bill of Rights — Research Paper | ScholarLens