Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:18:34.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Officers' Rights: Toward a Unified Field Theory of American Constitutional Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Karen Orren
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The changing rights of legally designated officers provides a comprehensive framework for following American constitutional development over time, in both public and private settings. Rights are defined as judicially enforceable claims on the person or actions of another; development, as enduring change in constitutional provision, structure, and doctrine. It is proposed that constitutional development as a historical process has consisted of a shift in the balance between the rights of officers and the rights of citizens. The framework is demonstrated empirically in connection with the Bill of Rights, federalism, and the separation of powers. Officers' rights is recommended as a method for studying constitutions comparatively and for linking constitutional development to other political events and phenomena like social movements and parties.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , 2000 , pp. 873 - 909
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Law and Society Association

Footnotes

Earlier versions of this article were presented at American politics workshops at Columbia University, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-San Diego, University of Southern California, and Yale University. For assistance and criticism, I am indebted to Kevin Finney, David Karol, Pam Singh, Adam Winkler, Joyce Appleby, Eileen McDonagh, Leslie Goldstein, Mark Graber, William Novak, Carroll Seron, Stephen Skowronek, Sylvia Snowiss, Mark Tushnet, Ellen Wood, and Jonathan Zasloff.

References

References

Ackerman, Bruce A. (1991) We the People: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amar, Akhil Reed (1992) “The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment,” 101 Yale Law J. 11.Google Scholar
Amar, Akhil Reed (1998) The Bill of Rights. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Barber, Sotirios A. (1997) “The Welfare State and the Nature of the U.S. Constitution,” 42 American J. of Jurisprudence 159.Google Scholar
Bellomo, Manlio (1995) The Common Legal Past of Europe, 1000–1800. Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstone, William (1979 [1765-69]) Commentaries on English Law, 4 vols. Reprint. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Buffaloe, Jennifer Y. (1997) “‘Special Needs’ and the Fourth Amendment: An Exception Poised to Swallow the Warrant Preference Rule,” 32 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Rev., 529.Google Scholar
Bush, Jonathan A. (1993) “‘You're Gonna Miss Me When I'm Gone’: Early Modern Common Law Discourse and the Case of the Jews,” 1993 Wisconsin Law Rev., 1225.Google Scholar
Casper, Gerhard (1989) “Changing Concepts of Constitutionalism: 18th to 20th Century,” Supreme Court Rev. 311.Google Scholar
Collins, Michael G. (1989) “Economic Rights, Implied Constitutional Actions, and the Scope of Section 1983” 77 Georgetown Law Rev., 1493.Google Scholar
Cooley, Thomas McIntyre (1883) A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, 5th Ed. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Currie, David P. (1986) “Positive and Negative Constitutional Rights,” 53 Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 804.Google Scholar
Currie, David P. (1994) The Constitution in the Supreme Court, 2 vols. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dawson, John P. (1968) The Oracles of the Law. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Dicey, A. V. (1959) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dinan, John J. (1999) “The Rehnquist Court's Federalism Decisions in Perspective.” 15 Journal of Law and Policy 127.Google Scholar
Duker, William F. (1980) A Constitutional History of Habeas Corpus. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Eberle, Edward J. (1997) “Public Discourse in Contemporary Germany,” 47 Case Western Reserve Law Rev. 797.Google Scholar
Engdahl, David E. (1999) “Intrinsic Limits of Congress' Power Regarding the Judicial Branch,” 1999 Brigham Young Law Rev. 75.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J., & Weingast, B. (1992) “Limitation of Statutes, Strategic Statutory Interpretation,” 80 Georgetown Law J. 565.Google Scholar
Forbath, William E. (1999) “Caste, Class, and Equal Citizenship,” 98 Univ. of Michigan Law Rev. 1.Google Scholar
Fox, Fox Sir John (1927) The History of Contempt of Court: The Form of Trial and the Mode of Punishment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Glendon, Mary Ann (1991) Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Glendon, Mary Ann (1992) “Rights in Twentieth-Century Constitutions,” 59 Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 519.Google Scholar
Hart, H., ed. (1970 [1945]) Of Laws in General. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Hartz, Louis (1955) The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Hoeflich, M. H. (1997) Roman and Civil Law and the Development of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in the Nineteenth Century. Athens, GA: Univ. of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Holdsworth, W. S. (1908) A History of English Law, vol 1. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: Univ. of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Hurd, Rollin C. (1878) A Treatise on the Right of Personal Liberty. Albany, NY: W.C. Little.Google Scholar
Langbein, John L. (1994) “The Historical Origins of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination at Common Law,” 92 Michigan Law Rev. 1047.Google Scholar
Larkins, Christopher (1996) “Judicial Independence and Democratization: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis,” 44 American J. of Comparative Law 605.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen (1992) Belated Feudalism: Labor, the Law, and Liberal Development in the United States. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen (1998) “‘A War Between Officers’: The Enforcement of Slave Law in the Northern United States, and of the Republic for Which It Stands,” 12 Studies in American Political Development 343.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen, & Skowronek, Stephen (1994) “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for a New Institutionalism,” in Dodd, L. & Jillson, C., eds. The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Perspectives, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Orth, John V. (1983) “The Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment, 1798-1908: A Case Study of Judicial Power,” 1983 Univ. of Illinois Law Rev. 423.Google Scholar
Pole, J. R. (1998) “Freedom of Speech, Right or Privilege?” London: Institute of United States Studies, Univ. of London.Google Scholar
Rapp, David (1994) “Clinton and the Country: The Headcount and the Headache,” 8 Governing 92.Google Scholar
Samuel, Geoffrey (1988) “Government Liability in Tort and the Public and Private Law Division,” 8 Legal Studies 277.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J. (1996) Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
Singer, Joseph William (1982) “The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfield,” 1982 Wisconsin Law Rev. 975.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. (1997) Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Story, Joseph (1833) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3. Boston: Hilliard, Gray.Google Scholar
Van Alstyne, William (1994) “The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Bear Arms,” 43 Duke Law J. 1236.Google Scholar
Watson, Alan (1990) “Roman Law and English Law: Two Patterns of Legal Development,” 36 Loyola Law Rev. 247.Google Scholar
Wells, Michael (1997) “Constitutional Courts, Common Law Torts, and Due Process of Law,” 72 Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 617.Google Scholar
White, Edward G. (1988) The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815–1835. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
White, Leonard D. (1965) The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History, 1789–1801. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Alden v. Maine, 119 S. Ct. 2240 (1999).Google Scholar
Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204 (1821).Google Scholar
Atlas Roofing v. O.S.H.R.C., 430 U.S. 442 (1977).Google Scholar
Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881).Google Scholar
Beacon Theaters v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959).Google Scholar
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).Google Scholar
Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872).Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955).Google Scholar
Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct. 525 (2000).Google Scholar
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978).Google Scholar
Cavendish's Case, 1 Anderson 152 (1586).Google Scholar
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).Google Scholar
City of New York ex rel Lungren, 822 F. Supp. 906 (1993).Google Scholar
City of New York v. United States Dept. of Commerce, 739 F. Supp. 761 (1990).Google Scholar
City of New York v. United States Dept. of Commerce, 34 F. 3d. 1114 (1994).Google Scholar
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).Google Scholar
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998).Google Scholar
Dairy Queen v. Wood, 368 U.S. 936 (1961).Google Scholar
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).Google Scholar
Entscheidungen des Bundesverfas-sungsgerichts (BVerfG) 39, 1 (1975).Google Scholar
Ex parte Young 209 U.S. 123 (1908).Google Scholar
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).Google Scholar
Gilchrist v. Collector, 10 Fed. Cas. 355 (1808).Google Scholar
Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).Google Scholar
Grisell v. Noel Brothers, 9 Ind. App. 251 (1894).Google Scholar
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939).Google Scholar
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).Google Scholar
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).Google Scholar
Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935).Google Scholar
I.C.C. v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447 (1894).Google Scholar
Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261 (1997).Google Scholar
In re Hennen, 38 U.S. 230 (1839).Google Scholar
Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840 (1833).Google Scholar
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880).Google Scholar
Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 751 (1998).Google Scholar
Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804).Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).Google Scholar
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).Google Scholar
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).Google Scholar
Milwaukee Publishing Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921).Google Scholar
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961).Google Scholar
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877).Google Scholar
N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).Google Scholar
National Endowment v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998).Google Scholar
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 883 (1976).Google Scholar
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).Google Scholar
New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837).Google Scholar
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).Google Scholar
N.L.R.B. v.Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S. 1 (1937).Google Scholar
O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987).Google Scholar
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).Google Scholar
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).Google Scholar
Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907).Google Scholar
Plessy v. Fergusson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842).Google Scholar
Printz v. U.S., 117 S. Ct. 2365 (1997).Google Scholar
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997).Google Scholar
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897).Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
Rush et al. v. U.S., 33 Ct. Cl. 417 (1898).Google Scholar
Schechter Poultry v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1937).Google Scholar
Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).Google Scholar
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872).Google Scholar
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor & Marshall v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900).Google Scholar
United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).Google Scholar
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).Google Scholar
United States v. Martin, 94 U.S. 400 (1876).Google Scholar
United States v. Morris, 23 U.S. 246 (1825).Google Scholar
United States v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000).Google Scholar
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).Google Scholar
Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).Google Scholar
Wabash, St. L., & Pac. Ry. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886).Google Scholar
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).Google Scholar
Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996).Google Scholar

Federal Statutes Cited

Administrative Procedures Act, 60 Stat. 237, June 11, 1946.Google Scholar
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. S. sec. 922, Nov. 30, 1993.Google Scholar
Child Labor Act, 39 Stat. 675, Sept. 1, 1916.Google Scholar
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, April 20, 1871.Google Scholar
Civil Rights Act of 1875, 18 Stat. 235, Mar. 1, 1875.Google Scholar
Collection Act, 1 Stat. 627, secs. 89 and 91, March 2, 1799.Google Scholar
Declaratory Judgment Act, 48 Stat. 955, June 14, 1934.Google Scholar
Embargo Act, 2 Stat. 499, sec. 11, April 25, 1808.Google Scholar
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.S. sec. 203, June 21, 1938, amend. 1970.Google Scholar
Federal Tort Claims Act, 60 Stat. 842, Aug. 2, 1946.Google Scholar
Fugitive Slave Act, 1 Stat. 302, Feb. 12, 1793.Google Scholar
Fugitive Slave Act, 9 Stat. 462, Sept. 18, 1850.Google Scholar
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U. S.C. S. sec. 922 (q)(1)(A), Nov. 29, 1990.Google Scholar
Judiciary (Habeas Corpus) Act, 14 Stat. 385, Feb. 5, 1867.Google Scholar
Missouri Compromise, 3 Stat. 545, March 6, 1820.Google Scholar
National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act, 20 U.S.C.S. sec. 954 (d)(1), Oct. 20, 1994.Google Scholar
National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat. 195, June 16, 1933.Google Scholar
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, July 5, 1935.Google Scholar
Non-Intercourse Act, 1 Stat. 613, Feb. 9, 1799.Google Scholar
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C.S., sec. 2000bb et seq., Nov. 16, 1993.Google Scholar
Remission Act, 1 Stat. 506, March 3, 1797.Google Scholar
Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C.S. sec. 13981, Sept. 13, 1994.Google Scholar
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, August 6, 1965.Google Scholar