Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:35:58.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bickel's Constitution: The Problem of Moderate Liberalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert K. Faulkner
Robert K. Faulkner*
Affiliation:
Boston College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Alexander Bickel's three most comprehensive books explore a common constitutional-political theme, the manner in which sound political judgment should guide judges and scholars who authoritatively interpret the United States Constitution. Yet the works differ, and the differences illuminate a dual development of Bickel's understanding: a growing fear of the contemporary obstacles to politic constitutional judgment, and a growing thoughtfulness in coming to grips with these obstacles. The Least Dangerous Branch had invented politic techniques for applying the judiciary's principles. The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress cautioned against judicial application, by novel techniques, of an impolitic egalitarian faith. The Morality of Consent, upon which this paper concentrates, elaborates Bickel's turn from the techniques of judicial power to the wise direction of judicial power. The paper considers the direction that Bickel proposes.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 925 - 940
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bickel, Alexander (1962). The Least Dangerous Branch, The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander (1970). The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander (1975). The Morality of Consent. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund (1826, first published in 1796). On the Genius and Character of the French Revolution as It Effects Other Nations (Letter II on a Regicide Peace). Works. London: C. & J. Rivington.Google Scholar
Faulkner, Robert (1968). “Justice Holmes and Chief Justice Marshall,” Appendix 1 to The Jurisprudence of John Marshall. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Frankel, Charles (1973). “The New Egalitarianism and the Old.” Commentary 56, No. 3:54–6.Google Scholar
Glazer, Nathan (1975). “Towards an Imperial Judiciary?” The Public Interest 41:104–23.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr. (1952). Collected Legal Papers. New York: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Abraham (1953). “Message to Congress in Special Session,” July 4, 1861. In Basler, Roy P. (ed.), Works, Vol. 4. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, pp. 421–41.Google Scholar
Lippmann, Walter (1955). Essays in The Public Philosophy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Purcell, Edward A. Jr. (1976). “Alexander M. Bickel and the Post-Realist Constitution.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 11:521–64.Google Scholar
Solzhenitsyn, Alexander (1975). The Voice of Freedom. Washington: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1969, first published in 1835 and 1840). Democracy in America. Garden City, N.Y.:Doubleday.Google Scholar
Wright, J. Skelly (1971). “Professor Bickel, the Scholarly Tradition, and the Supreme Court.” Harvard Law Review 84:769–805.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.