Isbn: 9780674293595 - the oldest constitutional question : enumeration and federal power (18 risultati)

Condizione: good. Has a sturdy binding with some shelf wear. May have some markings or highlighting. Used copies may not include access codes or Cd's. Slight bending may be present.

Condizione: New.

HRD. Condizione: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000.

Hardback. Condizione: New. A groundbreaking challenge to a core principle of constitutional law, arguing that congressional action is not limited by the legislative branch's textually enumerated powers.Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers, meaning that Congress can do what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to and nothing more. Yet Richard Primus contends that this longstanding orthodoxy-allegedly required by the text of the Constitution, the Framers' vision, and the logic of federalism-is fundamentally flawed.Through careful analysis of constitutional text and history, and of the structure of American federalism, The Oldest Constitutional Question builds a powerful argument for broad congressional authority. In particular, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. The Framers were more worried that the federal government might be fragile and anemic than that it would be overwhelmingly strong. Enumerating congressional powers is thus best understood as a way of ensuring that the federal legislature has an incontestable warrant to exercise the powers specified there, not as an exhaustive description of all that Congress can do.In practice, the enumeration of powers does little to limit Congress. But most constitutional lawyers-including many Supreme Court justices-think this means something has gone wrong, such that the courts must aggressively strike down federal laws exceeding Congress's enumerated powers. Primus's meticulous examination explodes the prevailing view, revealing its underlying errors. The constitutional system does place limits on Congress, and crucially so, but the enumeration of powers is not, and never has been, a sensible means for creating and enforcing those limits.…

Hardcover. Condizione: new. Hardcover. A groundbreaking challenge to a core principle of constitutional law, arguing that congressional action is not limited by the legislative branch's textually enumerated powers. Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers, meaning that Congress can do what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to and nothing more. Yet Richard Primus contends that this longstanding orthodoxy-allegedly required by the text of the Constitution, the Framers' vision, and the logic of federalism-is fundamentally flawed. Through careful analysis of constitutional text and history, and of the structure of American federalism, The Oldest Constitutional Question builds a powerful argument for broad congressional authority. In particular, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. The Framers were more worried that the federal government might be fragile and anemic than that it would be overwhelmingly strong. Enumerating congressional powers is thus best understood as a way of ensuring that the federal legislature has an incontestable warrant to exercise the powers specified there, not as an exhaustive description of all that Congress can do. In practice, the enumeration of powers does little to limit Congress. But most constitutional lawyers-including many Supreme Court justices-think this means something has gone wrong, such that the courts must aggressively strike down federal laws exceeding Congress's enumerated powers. Primus's meticulous examination explodes the prevailing view, revealing its underlying errors. The constitutional system does place limits on Congress, and crucially so, but the enumeration of powers is not, and never has been, a sensible means for creating and enforcing those limits. Richard Primus challenges the prevailing view that Congress is constrained to exercise only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. Analyzing constitutional text and history, as well as the structure of US federalism, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule the listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability.…

HRD. Condizione: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000.

Condizione: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Condizione: new.

Condizione: New. 2025. hardcover. . . . . .

Condizione: New.

Condizione: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Hardback. Condizione: New. New copy - Usually dispatched within 4 working days.

Condizione: New. 2025. hardcover. . . . . . Books ship from the US and Ireland.

Condizione: New. In English.

Hardcover. Condizione: Brand New. 448 pages. 9.50x6.50x1.50 inches. In Stock.

Hardcover. Condizione: new. Hardcover. A groundbreaking challenge to a core principle of constitutional law, arguing that congressional action is not limited by the legislative branch's textually enumerated powers. Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers, meaning that Congress can do what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to and nothing more. Yet Richard Primus contends that this longstanding orthodoxy-allegedly required by the text of the Constitution, the Framers' vision, and the logic of federalism-is fundamentally flawed. Through careful analysis of constitutional text and history, and of the structure of American federalism, The Oldest Constitutional Question builds a powerful argument for broad congressional authority. In particular, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. The Framers were more worried that the federal government might be fragile and anemic than that it would be overwhelmingly strong. Enumerating congressional powers is thus best understood as a way of ensuring that the federal legislature has an incontestable warrant to exercise the powers specified there, not as an exhaustive description of all that Congress can do. In practice, the enumeration of powers does little to limit Congress. But most constitutional lawyers-including many Supreme Court justices-think this means something has gone wrong, such that the courts must aggressively strike down federal laws exceeding Congress's enumerated powers. Primus's meticulous examination explodes the prevailing view, revealing its underlying errors. The constitutional system does place limits on Congress, and crucially so, but the enumeration of powers is not, and never has been, a sensible means for creating and enforcing those limits. Richard Primus challenges the prevailing view that Congress is constrained to exercise only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. Analyzing constitutional text and history, as well as the structure of US federalism, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule the listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. Shipping may be from our Sydney, NSW warehouse or from our UK or US warehouse, depending on stock availability.…

Hardcover. Condizione: new. Hardcover. A groundbreaking challenge to a core principle of constitutional law, arguing that congressional action is not limited by the legislative branch's textually enumerated powers. Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers, meaning that Congress can do what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to and nothing more. Yet Richard Primus contends that this longstanding orthodoxy-allegedly required by the text of the Constitution, the Framers' vision, and the logic of federalism-is fundamentally flawed. Through careful analysis of constitutional text and history, and of the structure of American federalism, The Oldest Constitutional Question builds a powerful argument for broad congressional authority. In particular, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. The Framers were more worried that the federal government might be fragile and anemic than that it would be overwhelmingly strong. Enumerating congressional powers is thus best understood as a way of ensuring that the federal legislature has an incontestable warrant to exercise the powers specified there, not as an exhaustive description of all that Congress can do. In practice, the enumeration of powers does little to limit Congress. But most constitutional lawyers-including many Supreme Court justices-think this means something has gone wrong, such that the courts must aggressively strike down federal laws exceeding Congress's enumerated powers. Primus's meticulous examination explodes the prevailing view, revealing its underlying errors. The constitutional system does place limits on Congress, and crucially so, but the enumeration of powers is not, and never has been, a sensible means for creating and enforcing those limits. Richard Primus challenges the prevailing view that Congress is constrained to exercise only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. Analyzing constitutional text and history, as well as the structure of US federalism, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule the listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. Shipping may be from our UK warehouse or from our Australian or US warehouses, depending on stock availability.…

Hardback. Condizione: New. A groundbreaking challenge to a core principle of constitutional law, arguing that congressional action is not limited by the legislative branch's textually enumerated powers.Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers, meaning that Congress can do what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to and nothing more. Yet Richard Primus contends that this longstanding orthodoxy-allegedly required by the text of the Constitution, the Framers' vision, and the logic of federalism-is fundamentally flawed.Through careful analysis of constitutional text and history, and of the structure of American federalism, The Oldest Constitutional Question builds a powerful argument for broad congressional authority. In particular, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. The Framers were more worried that the federal government might be fragile and anemic than that it would be overwhelmingly strong. Enumerating congressional powers is thus best understood as a way of ensuring that the federal legislature has an incontestable warrant to exercise the powers specified there, not as an exhaustive description of all that Congress can do.In practice, the enumeration of powers does little to limit Congress. But most constitutional lawyers-including many Supreme Court justices-think this means something has gone wrong, such that the courts must aggressively strike down federal laws exceeding Congress's enumerated powers. Primus's meticulous examination explodes the prevailing view, revealing its underlying errors. The constitutional system does place limits on Congress, and crucially so, but the enumeration of powers is not, and never has been, a sensible means for creating and enforcing those limits.…