– #A truth-of-lending-act[1] on judicial authority, liability and inertia –
Statutory interpretation is the Cinderella of legal scholarship. Once scorned and neglected, confined to the kitchen, it now dances in the ballroom. (William N. Eskridge Jr, Dynamic Statutory Interpretation)
Honourable Chief Justice of the United States! Dear John!
How’re things going for you?
Great!
What’s up?!
Well, let’s get started.
Act 1 | The United States of America Lending The Truth
How can we discover just what the broad sweeping phrases of the text signify as concrete legal mandates unless they should be interpreted by some authoritative organ? How can their meaning reflect the shift and flux of social conditions, economic interests, and political ideas unless the organ which interprets should likewise be equipped to reinterpret? And finally what pragmatic value can either the text or the successive interpretations retain unless the process of adapting the Constitution should be somehow combined with a concomitant process of effectuating it by force of law? These concerns lead us to the import of "Marbury v. Madison". ... Judicial review is always more than pure and simple enforcement of the Constitution; in addition, it always comprises express or tacit interpretation of the Constitution, or – in other words – a continual process of adjusting and adapting the fundamental fabric. The sanction which Marshall installed in "Marbury v. Madison" should be seen as having served both purposes; it has maintained the Constitution not only by giving it legal force but also by providing in a substantial measure for continual reshaping and development. That is why our theme has linked Article III concerning the judicial power with Article V concerning the power of amendment. (The Legacy of Marbury vs Madison)
Upfront, from a judicial point ot view, this publication could be misunderstood in the sense of a merely amateurish petition on overhauling the Supreme Court. Alternatively, it might be simply depreciated by means of presumed deficiency against the comprehensive backdrop of American Jurisprudence.
Moreover, the author‘s input mustn’t be viewed as a disrespectful writing on a former US President keen on attaining office again. In fact, this essay be rather understood as a complementary Appendix to a variety of releases specifically on the United States of America, indicated as per Frame of Reference.
Could you be slightly interested?
Act 2 | American Justice Lending The Truth
Judicial review is always more than pure and simple enforcement of the Constitution; in addition, it always comprises express or tacit interpretation of the Constitution, or – in other words – a continual process of adjusting and adapting the fundamental fabric. The sanction which Marshall installed in "Marbury v. Madison" should be seen as having served both purposes; it has maintained the Constitution not only by giving it legal force but also by providing in a substantial measure for continual reshaping and development. That is why our theme has linked Article III concerning the judicial power with Article V concerning the power of amendment. (The Primate of Judicial Review)
In this special context, a conspicuous integration of numerous quotations are paying a tribute to Edmond Cahn[2], an American Jurist having gained national and international fame on his significant contributions to Legal Philosophy and Jurisprudence.
One of Cahn‘s most widely perceived and appreciated works was/has been/is/will be Confronting Injustice[3], also featuring transcripts of his conversational battle with Israel‘s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion[4] on the Role of Supreme Justice vs popular sentiment and autocratic governmental leadership.
In particular, Confronting Injustice serves this feature in regard to outlining the challenges to the US Supreme Court‘s tasks and duties.
Interested?
Act 3 | Language Perception and Apprehension Lending The Truth
The single most important fallacy of twentieth-century thought is that we have homogenized our relativism. Spurred by semantics and anthropology, philosophy has taught that all propositions in judgments are relative, and legal philosophy has echoed the teaching. Depending on the point of view, every statement and its contrary are fungibly true, fungibly false. Yet, oddly enough, the philosophers who so assure us have failed to apply their dialectical and critical talents to their own relativism. Relativism alone stands undifferentiated, untested, unassorted, and unclassified. Since values are merely relative without discrimination or distinction among them, Adolf Hitler maybe regarded as relatively bad or good in the same sense that Albert Schweitzer is relatively good or bad and Charles Darwin is relatively superior or inferior to an anthropoid ape. (Unchallenged Relativism)
Are we speaking English? This is a question Susan Sonntag[5] enjoyed raising repeatedly while being interviewed.
Do you perceive the ridicule of English, Trump is speaking? Do you apprehend the distortion of English, his ink eradicators are trying to impose on you, the Supreme Court, Federal Courts, Journalism, Broadcasting; the American Nation, their History and Education?
Act 4 | Writ and Speech Lending The Truth
How does a person become a consumer of government and law? The obvious and traditional way consists in living amid conditions of reasonable public order and being safeguarded and regulated from day to day as one goes about the chores of his life and fills his place in society; in this sense, one consumes law whenever one talks or writes, walks or sits, buys or sells, rents or rides, pays or receives. In addition, there is a more dramatic way to consume the law. One may engage in a lawsuit, or be charged with a crime. Under democratic government, a citizen also consumes law in a more extensive fashion. He influences the shape of policy and legislation, casts his vote, supports his political party, urges reforms, asserts the interests of a special group or of the whole community. Finally, there is a third way to consume government and law. It consists in examining, judging and assuming responsibility for what our officials do in our name and by our authority, the unjust and evil acts as well as the beneficient and good. (Consumers of Government and Law)
With hindsight, Trump’s The Art of the Deal[6] in a way seems like an early 80s Wall Street-version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf[7], Gordon Gekko[8] could’ve supported as a co-author.
Didn’t Trump‘s Revolutionary Spirit speech[9] at the Capitol feature lots of content serving reminiscence of Fascist Talk, especially against the backdrop of perhaps the most infamous State of the Nation Addresses[10] totalitarianism[11] has ever brought about?
Act 5 | Admiration and Appreciation Lending The Truth
Legal philosophy in its long career has found a score of ways to ask whether judges are themselves consumers of the law. Does a judge assume any political responsibility of an ethical nature when he enforces in immoral private law (i.e., a contract) or an inhumane public law (i.e., a statute)? If he does, has he a "legal" right to refuse enforcement? ... The proposition that judges too may be consumers of the law has immediate practical applications. ... The majority have neglected the interest of the judge as consumer of the law while the minority have concentrated on his interest to the exclusion of everyone else's. (Legal Philosophy and Judicial Consumers of Law)
Repeatedly, Donald Trump has publicly enjoyed praising[12], i.e. has made friends with notorious Dictators on their unique talents and leadership skills.
Hasn’t he accordingly proven a threat[13] to Democracy in regard to having boldly appreciated such bigwhig monotheism?
Who ‘s been taking his words for granted?
Act 6 | Founding Fathers Lending The Truth
What use did the German judges Catholic or non-Catholic make of natural law? What did they do with natural law when they were confronted with a cruel legislation of the Hitler regime? A German expert reports: "Two groups deserve the place of honor among those who made their scholarship subservient to the Nazi ends: the biologists and the jurists ... The jurists ... spared no effort in molding the abstruse ideas of the new rulers into clear-cut articles of law and directives and in defending the legality of the measures taken." Another German expert says: "The whole profession is to be blamed for a high degree of guilt and for having brought great disaster upon itself and the German people." A third expert writes: "They acted as 'yes-men'. Instead of leading in the field of at least intellectual resistance to a criminal system, they readily joined it as followers and in quite a few instances even as activists. In all the prolific literature of the German Resistance, little if anything can be read about the members of the legal profession. Most, if not all, German jurists of the Hitler period were far from becoming martyrs in the defense of justice. Quite a few of them acted as hangman's assistance in the extermination of justice. ..." (Judicial Subservience: Justice’s Downfall in Nazi-Germany – a case in point)
The US Constitution’s[14] Genesis has coined her Authenticity[15].
How could you[16] appreciate the kind of Neo-English, the politically correct and pragmatic interpretation of the US Constitution is whispering into more than 300 million Americans’ ears incapable of getting to grips with specific meanings behind certain words – with the exception of seasoned jurists?
How come the lexical, semantic and statutory interpretative approaches of Textualism[17] seem to have turned the US Constitution into a multitude of foreign language dictionaries only the judicial members of profession may understand?
To what extent has Contextualism[18] lost track of the US Constitution’s History and Evolution? Has the Supreme Court lost significant Authority[19] by means of lack of exercised Judical Review[20], since having been increasingly subject to Determinants and Factors driven by conflicting political biases[21] diametrically opposing constitutional Premises?
Act 7 | Ex Officio and Per Curiam Lending The Truth
Think of the judicial libertarians, we had during recent decades – Homes, Brandis, Stone, Hughes, Murphy, Rutledge; and those now on the bench – Black, Douglas, Warren, Brennan not being ashamed of freedom, they are able to enforce the Bill of Rights with the vigor it deserves. As we need the text, so too do we need men like them. The personal element is always consequential in the exercise of judgment. Hence the superiority of our jurists has given us a significant national advantage. (Supreme Hour of Power)
The US Presidential Election in 2000[22] having featured George W. Bush[23] and Al Gore[24] could’ve been rated an Election Scandal. Eventually Bush won by court decision not ballot (re)counting.
According to reports, Sandra Day O‘Connor[25], i.e. Mrs Per Curiam[26] then being an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States had availed confidential support in Bush’s favour.
Wasn‘t this a juridically stolen election and wasn’t Al Gore betrayed of his Status as a Legit President Elect?!
Doesn’t a Collegial Court’s Judicial Counselling Confidentiality bear sufficient room for a discreet perversion of justice in the sense of keeping individual judical votes on a Court Ruling anonymous?
Act 8 | Ink Eradicators Lending The Truth
The threat does not come from overseas or from any foreign source – would that, it did; we could easily repel it. It comes from within our own borders and from certain of our own judges, who are widely echoed by various lawyers, professors and journalists. It is the threat of the "ink eradicator" philosophy. ... What is the "ink eradicator" philosophy and what does it propose to accomplish? It's immediate objective is simple to state. It aims to erase the words of the First Amendment from the parchment of our Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees us separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly and – by implication – freedom of association. The "ink eradicators" have long since served notice that they disapprove of the whole notion of a written Bill of Rights and would prefer to eliminate the entire document. ... They insist that all words are too imprecise to be taken for what they say, that every affirmative may just as well be a negative and every negative an affirmative, and that only the naive among us will permit a categorical prohibition to stand in the way of what seems expedient at any given moment. Words have so little meaning in their view that one wonders how they can use words to tell us so. ... What do the "ink eradicators" say about the First Amendment? The amendment itself is couched in what the rest of us might consider rather direct terms. It provides that "Congress shall make no law" on certain subjects that the Founding Fathers considered sacred and indispensable to human dignity. Although the Amendment says precisely that "Congress shall make no law" in these fields, the "ink eradicators" claim that it means something quite different. They claim that when it says "Congress shall make no law" it means "Congress shall make no 'unreasonable' law". So far, so ominous. But the next question is: What is "unreasonable" law? They have a quick answer: "A law", they insist, "is unreasonable only, if a majority of the judges decide it is." Suppose, then, the Congress proceeds to flout the First Amendment and abridge our freedom of religion or speech or press, how are the judges to determine whether the law is reasonable or unreasonable? "This", they reply, "is easy: The law must be reasonable or Congress would not have enacted it. It would be an assault to the members of Congress, for whom all patriotic Americans feel a reverence bordering on idolatry, were the judges to take the first amendment literally and nullify such a law." (The Threat of Ink Eradication)
In closing, this humble piece of concern providing a treatise of comprehensive fact delivery on (mis)understanding the US Constitution be a critical appeal on reviewing and most importantly applying a country's unique Legacy of a Constitutional Framework.
How about commencing one's Supreme Mission outside an Executive Committee's box of a comfort zone?
Jurisprudentially negotiable compromise mustn't camouflage manoeuvres of subservience towards political pressure groups.
Permitting Trump's ink eradicators an abstrusive rationalisation of a former US President's conspicuous Abuse of Office by means of preserving the fiction of Sacrosanctity post ex officio, is as ridiculously medieval as Papal infallibility[27].
Are you (considering yourself) infallible ex officio?
To this day, then President/wanna be President again Trump has gradually obliterated the Constitution's legitimate and legal purpose of withstanding epitomes of devastation like him. He ’s simply proven keen on satisfying his addiction to narcissism and megalomania at the expense of having subverted the United States‘ Fundaments of Democracy.
How long are you planning on waiting at sidelines as a supreme bystander?
How about flipping a 1921 Silver Dollar[28] on the odds pro/contra Trump?
Respectfully Yours,
Cal Caleido
Frame of Reference
A Counterfeit World: Not only Trump’s
Julie, Nikki & Rikki, Don’t Lose Your Number
[1] By figurative analogy: Truth-in-Lending Act | United States | Britannica ––– Truth in Lending Act Fact Sheet (usalearning.gov) ––– TILA: The Textualist-Intentionalist Litmus Act? (shu.edu) ––– TILA: The Textualist-Intentionalist Litmus Act? (shu.edu)
[2] Edward N. Cahn (Wikiped) ––– Edmond Nathaniel Cahn (1906-1964) | The National Library of Israel (nli.org.il) ––– Cahn, Edmond Nathaniel (jewishvirtuallibrary.org) ––– Edmond Cahn, 58, A Jurist, Is Dead; Professor at N.Y.U. Was a Noted Legal Philosopher - The New York Times (nytimes.com) ––– Prof. Edmond Cahn, Noted U.S. Legal Philosopher, Dead; Was 58 - Jewish Telegraphic Agency (jta.org) ––– related (1) as follows: Edmond Cahn, Law in the Consumer Perspective (upenn.edu) ––– Edmond Cahn and the Search for Empirical Justice (villanova.edu) ––– specifically related (2) as follows: Rhode Island Herald, Report Ben-Gurion Threatens to Resign Over Lavon Probe, 4 November 1960 (rijha.org) ––– The Issue - Norman Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine: Should Eichmann be executed? A few weeks ago, in a letter to the New York Times, Professor Edmond Cahn of the New York University Law School, wrote: “If Eichmann should be convicted and put to death, we could only say that the Israelis had conducted themselves ‘like the nations.’ On the other hand, if the prosecutor should recommend or the court impose a sentence of life imprisonment, the whole world would respond with gratitude, renewed faith and admiration.” This is probably true, but I wonder why it is that Israel must always be asked to act more nobly than other nations. Isn’t this demand a way of telling Jews that they must justify their existence instead of taking it for granted that they have a simple right to exist and therefore to be “merely” human, and “like the nations”? ––– Edmond Cahn, Defamation Control vs. Press Freedom: A Current Chapter in Israel 13 Journal of Public Law 1964 (heinonline.org) ––– Nieman Reports, Sylvan Meyer, We Call it Privilege, They Call it Freedom to Smear, December 1965 (niemanreports.org): The Journal published a series of letters between David Ben-Gurion, former prime minister of Israel, and Edmond Cahn, late professor of law at New York University. Mr. Ben-Gurion permitted publication because of the clarity of his debate with Mr. Cahn and the understanding the letters might bestow on the entire issue of control of defamation against officials vs. a free press. ... Mr. Dissentshik also reported that the existence of the Ben Gurion-Cahn correspondence is unknown in Israel.
[3] Edmond Cahn - Confronting Injustice on JSTOR
[4] David Ben-Gurion | Biography, May 1948, & Facts | Britannica ––– related feature: Damocles‘ Exit Light! - Cal Caleido’s Substack
[5] Susan Sontag | Biography, On Photography, Notes on Camp, & Facts | Britannica ––– related: Susan Sonntag - A Woman's Beauty- A Put Down or Power Source (wheelersburg.net)
[6] Book: Trump: The Art of the Deal | work by Trump and Schwartz | Britannica ––– Trump's The Art Of The Deal : Donald Trump : Internet Archive ––– Trump: The Art of the Deal (business.go.tz) ––– | ––– Critique: An Ethicist Reads "The Art of the Deal" - The Atlantic ––– Art of the Steal | The New Republic ––– 'Art of the Deal’ co-author says Trump is having a ‘meltdown’ and explains why this is a 'true emergency' | The Independent | The Independent ––– Co-author of Trump’s ‘Art of the Deal’ says the book should be reclassified as fiction - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) ––– Trump's book 'Art of the Deal' is a bestseller again (cnn.com) ––– Trump: The Art of the Deal (Book) Review (thebiographychannel.ca) ––– The Art of the Deal: A Review of Donald J. Trump's Book - Marcellino NY ––– | ––– Political Reception and Interpretation: ’The Art Of The Deal’ Proves Donald Trump Isn't Funny Anymore (uproxx.com) ––– Proof Donald Trump Isn't Great at Negotiating | Fortune ––– How 9 "Art of the Deal" quotes explain the Trump presidency (axios.com) ––– The dangerous side to the art of the deal | Brookings ––– 'Art of the deal'? Trump's negotiators are often hard-liners who struggle to close (nbcnews.com) ––– Trump seriously considered taking the oath of office on his bestseller The Art of the Deal – The Irish Times ––– What Trump’s 1987 book ‘The Art of the Deal’ reveals about 2024 | The Hill ––– | ––– Co-Author’s Standing: The ghostwriter of Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal wants it taken out of print ‹ Literary Hub (lithub.com) ––– Trump "Art of the Deal" book co-author Tony Schwartz says book should be renamed to "The Sociopath" and recategorized as fiction - CBS News ––– | ––– Trump’s Response to Co-Author’s Standing: Donald Trump Threatens the Ghostwriter of “The Art of the Deal” | The New Yorker
[7] Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf | English (sjsu.edu) ––– related as follows: Adolf Hitler | Biography, Rise to Power, History, & Facts | Britannica ––– Adolf Hitler - Nazi Leader, WW2, Holocaust | Britannica
[8] Gordon Gekko | fictional character | Britannica ––– related: Wall Street | film by Stone [1987] | Britannica –––
[9] Transcript of Trump's Speech at Rally Before US Capitol Riot | Political News | US News: Media will not show the magnitude of this crowd. Even I, when I turned on today, I looked, and I saw thousands of people here. But you don’t see hundreds of thousands of people behind you because they don’t want to show that. We have hundreds of thousands of people here and I just want them to be recognized by the fake news media. Turn your cameras please and show what’s really happening out here because these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer. Go ahead. Turn your cameras, please. Would you show? They came from all over the world, actually, but they came from all over our country.
[10] Adolf Hitler's Reichstag Speech on Revolutionary Spirit, 30 January 1937 (worldfuturefund.org): At the time when I used to go here and there throughout the country, simply as a public speaker, people from the bourgeois classes used to ask me why we believed that a revolution would be necessary, instead of working within the framework of the established political order and with the collaboration of the parties already in existence, for the purpose of improving those conditions which we considered unsound and injurious. Why must be have a new party, and especially why a new revolution? ––– Joseph Goebbels' Sportpalast Speech on Total War, 18 February 1943 (calvin.edu): I do not know how many millions of people are listening to me over the radio tonight, at home and at the front. I want to speak to all of you from the depths of my heart to the depths of yours. I believe that the entire German people has a passionate interest in what I have to say tonight. I will therefore speak with holy seriousness and openness, as the hour demands. The German people, raised, educated and disciplined by National Socialism, can bear the whole truth. It knows the gravity of the situation, and its leadership can therefore demand the necessary hard measures, yes even the hardest measures.
[11] Related features as follows: Damocles‘ Exit Light! - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Beware of the Alien Nation: - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Tweets of Truth ... - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Fiat Iustitia Et Pereat Mundus: - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Withstanding Êpitomes of Destrûctiveness! - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Ten Princesses on the President’s Pea! - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Come on, Lyrical Political D‘Mitry: - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Putin's Echo Chamber. - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Humpty Dumpty's Hebrew Hip Hop! - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Behemoth’s Unresolved Simplexities! - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Cogwheels Creaking Cowardly ... - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Alleman(n)iac Transformers in Concert ... - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Procrustes' Cocoons: ... Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– ‘Chance‘ Magoo & The Arsonists! - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Confucius‘ Candyman Can! - Cal Caleido’s Substack ––– Never Break Leviathan‘s Sleep! - Cal Caleido’s Substack
[12] 5 Controversial Dictators and Leaders Donald Trump Has Praised - ABC News (go.com) ––– Donald Trump's History of Praising Dictators (nbcnews.com) ––– Donald Trump's 9 Shout-Outs to Notorious Dictators - The Atlantic ––– 15 times Donald Trump praised authoritarian rulers | CNN Politics ––– Trump, again, praises dictators and rails against immigrants -- again sparking backlash - ABC News (go.com)
[13] ‘Devastating’: Conway reacts to Trump team’s day in court (youtube.com) ––– Ty Cobb says Trump poses ‘greatest threat to democracy that we’ve ever seen’ - YouTube
[14] Constitution of the United States of America | Definition, Summary, Amendments, Analysis, Importance, & Facts | Britannica ––– The Constitution of the United States of America (constitutioncenter.org) ––– related (1) as follows: List of amendments to the U.S. Constitution | Secondary Keywords: Ratification, Bill of Rights, 27 Amendments | Britannica ––– The Amendments | Constitution Center ––– specifically related (2) as follows: U.S. Constitution - Article III | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress ––– Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
[15] Constitutional originalism | judicial philosophy | Britannica
[16] About the Supreme Court | United States Courts (uscourts.gov)
[17] Definition of Textualism: Textualism | judicial philosophy | Britannica ––– Let’s Talk About Text | ACS (acslaw.org) ––– | ––– Origin of Textualism: All About Words: Early Understandings of the "Judicial Power" in Statutory Interpretation, 1776-1806 (yale.edu) ––– | ––– General Textualism: What is Textualism - NelsonBook (virginialawreview.org) ––– The Modes of Constitutional Analysis - Textualism (fas.org) ––– Textualism: Definition, and 20 Reasons Why Textualism is Preferable to Other Methods of Statutory Interpretation (missouri.edu) ––– | ––– Comparative Textualism: The Varying Interpretations of the United States Constitution (liberty.edu) ––– Three Symmetries between Textualist and Purposivist Theories of Statutory Interpretation - and the Irreducible Roles of Values and Judgment within Both (core.ac.uk) ––– | ––– Critical Textualism: Textual criticism | Definition, Examples, & Facts | Britannica ––– Textualism is ‘missing something’ - Harvard Law School | Harvard Law School ––– Effective but Limited: A Corpus Linguistic Analysis of the Original Public Meaning of Executive Power (gsu.edu) ––– There is No Textualist Position (sandiego.edu) ––– The Illusion and Allure of Textualism (villanova.edu) ––– Textualism's Mistake (harvardlawreview.org) ––– | ––– New School of Sustainable Textualism: The Roberts Court and The New Textualism (cardozolawreview.com) ––– Statutory Interpretation in The Roberts Supreme Court: The New Textualism | UCLA Law ––– A case study of new textualism in state courts: Doe v. Marselle and the confidentiality of HIV-related information - PubMed (nih.gov) ––– Laying Claim to the Constitution: The Promise of New Textualism - Virginia Law Review ––– The Case for New Textualism : Democracy Journal ––– New Textualism - YouTube ––– New Textualism in Constitutional Law (uchicago.edu) ––– The New Textualism (core.ac.uk) ––– The New Textualists' New Text (brooklaw.edu) ––– The New Textualism and Normative Canons (yale.edu) ––– The Rhetorical Canons of Construction: New Textualism's Rhetoric Problem (michiganlawreview.org) ––– New Textualism and the Thirteenth Amendment (umich.edu) ––– related as follows: John G. Roberts, Jr. | Biography, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, & Facts | Britannica ––– Antonin Scalia | Biography, Jurisprudence, & Facts | Britannica ––– | ––– Statutory Textualism: Dynamic Statutory Interpretation — Harvard University Press ––– Do Theories of Statutory Interpretation Matter - A Case Study ––– Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends (fas.org) ––– Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends (congress.gov) ––– Dynamic Statutory Interpretation (upenn.edu) ––– Interpreting The Law - A Primer On How To Read Statutes And The Constitution (duke.edu) ––– William N. Eskridge Jr. - Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning (core.ac.uk) ––– related critique: The Injustice of Dynamic Statutory Interpretation (northwestern.edu) ––– | ––– Muscular Textualism: When Statutory Interpretation Becomes Precedent: Why Individual Rights Advocates Shouldn’t Be So Quick to Praise (wlu.edu) ––– | ––– Progressive Textualism: Progressive Textualism (georgetown.edu) ––– | ––– Future Textualism: What is the Future of Textualism? | The Federalist Society (fedsoc.org) ––– | ––– Digital Textualism: The Yale Law Journal - Forum: Googling for Meaning: Statutory Interpretation in the Digital Age ––– "Digital Realty, Legislative History, and Textualism" by Michael Francus (pepperdine.edu)
[18] The Constitution of the United States of America: A Contextual Analysis - Harvard Law School | Harvard Law School ––– related as follows: Historical Context: The Survival of the US Constitution | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History ––– Historical Context for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights | The Core Curriculum (columbia.edu) ––– Context and History - The U.S. Constitution - Research Guides at University of Oregon Libraries (uoregon.edu)
[19] Judicial Authority in the United States (pepperdine.edu)
[20] Judicial review | Definition, Forms, & Facts | Britannica ––– Constitutional law - Judicial Review, US Courts, Precedent | Britannica ––– judicial review | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) ––– related as follows: Marbury v. Madison | Background, Summary, & Significance | Britannica ––– Marbury v. Madison | Key Facts | Britannica ––– Marbury v. Madison | Causes & Effects | Britannica ––– ––– Marbury vs. Madison: What Was the Case About? | History - YouTube ––– Marbury v. Madison :: 5 U.S. 137 (1803) : Justia US Supreme Court Center ––– William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) ––– The Enduring Legacy of Marbury v. Madison | 1803 (uscourts.gov)
[21] Court Polarization: A Comparative Perspective (uclawsf.edu)
[22] United States presidential election of 2000 | Bush vs. Gore, Electoral College & Supreme Court | Britannica ––– Bush v. Gore | Summary, Decision, Significance, & Facts | Britannica ––– Bush v. Gore :: 531 U.S. 98 (2000) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center ––– Bush Wins in Supreme Court; Gore Is Pressured to Concede - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) ––– Bush v. Gore: A special report.; Election Case a Test and a Trauma for Justices - The New York Times (nytimes.com) ––– Legal Precedent and the Bush-Gore Ruling : NPR ––– Bush v. Gore and the 2000 Election Never Ended (nymag.com) ––– Lessons From Bush v. Gore: How to Win an Election in Court | TIME ––– Why Bush v. Gore Still Matters in 2020 — ProPublica ––– Bush v. Gore destroyed us | The Hill ––– How the 2000 Election Came Down to a Supreme Court Decision | HISTORY ––– ––– On this day, Bush v. Gore settles 2000 presidential race - National Constitution Center ––– Whether in 2000 or 2024, There’s No Upside for Supreme Court in Deciding Elections - WSJ ––– Supreme Court: New documents show how Sandra Day O'Connor helped George W. Bush win the 2000 election | CNN Politics || Bush Vs Gore - Supreme Court Decision (supremecourt.gov) ––– The Bush vs. Gore Case in the Supreme Court | Law Paper Example (lawbirdie.com) ––– Bush Vs Gore - How the Press Covered the Final Stages of the Presidential Campaign (pewresearch.org) ––– U.S. Reports: Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). (loc.gov) ––– The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush V. Gore (umn.edu) ––– Bush v. Gore: The Worst (or at least second-to-the-worst) Supreme Court Decision Ever (unlv.edu) || [Bush v. Gore] and the 2000 Election | C-SPAN.org ––– Inside Bush v Gore: The Divisive Election That Shaped History - YouTube ––– Bush v. Gore: How a Recount Dispute Affects Voting Today - Retro Report ––– related as follows: George W. Bush | Biography, Presidency, & Facts | Britannica ––– Al Gore | Biography & Facts | Britannica ––– Sandra Day O'Connor (Wikiped)
[23] George W. Bush | Biography, Presidency, & Facts | Britannica
[24] Al Gore | Biography & Facts | Britannica
[25] Sandra Day O'Connor (Wikiped) ––– Supreme Court: New documents show how Sandra Day O'Connor helped George W. Bush win the 2000 election | CNN Politics
[26] Per curiam decision (Wikiped)
Share this post