The Supreme Court Versus Congress: Disrupting the Balance of Power, 1789a

Commendation Quotes:"William Glidden's survey of Supreme Court cases holding national statutes unconstitutional--some familiar, others much less so--provides the basis for evaluating whether judicial review of national legislation has been on balance good for the country. It is a valuable resource no matter what your judgment on the bottom line question is."Commendation Quotes:"William Glidden makes a compelling case that we would all be better off if the Supreme Court exercised much more deferential judicial review over acts of Congress. The prose is clear and accessible and the data provided comprehensive. Anyone thinking about the relative roles of the Congress and the Court in our political system would be well-advised to read this fine book."Commendation Quotes:"The Supreme Court versus Congress is a masterful interpretation and evaluation of the practice of judicial review. Glidden examines all of the Supreme Court's major cases striking down federal legislation, from Justice Marshall's decision in Marbury v Madison, which established the practice, to its unfortunate decision in Citizen's United and its recent treatments of the Voting Rights Act and the Affordable Care Act. He looks in particular at the Court's gutting of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of liberty and equality, and its evisceration of Congress's role in enforcing those guarantees under Section Five of that Amendment. He concludes that on balance the practice of judicial review is not authorized by the Constitution itself, has harmed the country more than it has helped us, and that Congress should reclaim its authority to reign in the Court by restricting its jurisdictional reach, at least with respect to core legislation that commands broad popular support. This is an important and balanced assessment of this central judicial practice by an accomplished lawyer and Supreme Court scholar."Commendation Quotes: "The Supreme Court versus Congress is a masterful interpretation and evaluation of the practice of judicial review. Glidden examines all of the Supreme Court's major cases striking down federal legislation, from Justice Marshall's decision in Marbury v Madison, which established the practice, to its unfortunate decision in Citizen's United and its recent treatments of the Voting Rights Act and the Affordable Care Act. He looks in particular at the Court's gutting of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of liberty and equality, and its evisceration of Congress's role in enforcing those guarantees under Section Five of that Amendment. He concludes that on balance the practice of judicial review is not authorized by the Constitution itself, has harmed the country more than it has helped us, and that Congress should reclaim its authority to reign in the Court by restricting its jurisdictional reach, at least with respect to core legislation that commands broad popular support. This is an important and balanced assessment of this central judicial practice by an accomplished lawyer and Supreme Court scholar."Commendation Quotes: "William Glidden's survey of Supreme Court cases holding national statutes unconstitutional--some familiar, others much less so--provides the basis for evaluating whether judicial review of national legislation has been on balance good for the country. It is a valuable resource no matter what your judgment on the bottom line question is."Marc Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index. Commendation Quotes:"William Glidden, after penning the most comprehensive survey of the judicial power to declare laws unconstitutional that I know of, finds the Supreme Court wanting. Anyone wishing to defend, oppose, or simply be aware of that judicial power should be familiar with the arguments and analysis in this book."Commendation Quotes: "William Glidden, after penning the most comprehensive survey of the judicial power to declare laws unconstitutional that I know of, finds the Supreme Court wanting. Anyone wishing to defend, oppose, or simply be aware of that judicial power should be familiar with the arguments and analysis in this book."Commendation Quotes: "William Glidden makes a compelling case that we would all be better off if the Supreme Court exercised much more deferential judicial review over acts of Congress. The prose is clear and accessible and the data provided comprehensive. Anyone thinking about the relative roles of the Congress and the Court in our political system would be well-advised to read this fine book."Publisher Marketing: The always-controversial practice of judicial review of Congress is not prescribed in the Constitution, but is arguably a valid way to protect the rights of individuals or guard against unfair rule by the majority. This book offers a historical review and indictment of the Supreme Court's overruling of Congress, ultimately taking a position that this has been more detrimental than beneficial to the democratic process in the United States, and that in the aggregate rights of individuals and minorities would have been better served if the relevant laws of Congress had been enforced rather than struck down by the Court. Written by an author who is a historian and a lawyer, the book covers all Supreme Court overrides of Congress through 2014, including major historical turning points in Supreme Court legislation and such recent and relevant topics as the Affordable Care Act, limits on contributions to political candidates and campaigns from wealthy individuals, and the Defense of Marriage Act. The discussions of specific cases are made in relevant context and focus on "big picture" themes and concepts without skipping key details, making this a useful volume for law and university level students while also being accessible to general readers.