skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 52015 Find in a Library
Title: EFFECT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ON FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES
Author(s): R E JOHNSTON
Corporate Author: Louisiana State University Press
United States of America
Date Published: 1969
Page Count: 337
Sponsoring Agency: Louisiana State University Press
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Sale Source: Louisiana State University Press
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS BOOK INVESTIGATES THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ON FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IN THOSE AREAS IN WHICH THREE FEDERAL SYSTEMS, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES, HAVE SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.
Abstract: MOVEMENTS TOWARD POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IN WESTERN EUROPEAN NATIONS HAVE SPARKED RENEWED INTEREST IN THE STUDY OF FEDERAL SYSTEMS. RICHARD E JOHNSTON, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, COMPARES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE HIGHEST COURTS OF AUSTRALIA, CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES HAVE TREATED VARIOUS PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FEDERALISM SUCH AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITIES, TAXATION, SPENDING, TREATIES, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TRADE, AND COMMERCE. THE EFFECTS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN DETERMINING THE BOUNDARIES OF DIVIDED GOVERNMENTAL POWER AND THE ROLES OF JUDGES, BOTH PAST AND PRESENT, IN ESTABLISHING THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STATE AND NATION IN THREE POLITICAL SYSTEMS ARE EVALUATED. AN EXPLANATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS OF THE THREE NATIONS REVEALS THAT CARE IN THE DRAFTING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CAN NOT DETERMINE THE COURSE OF FUTURE INTERPRETATIONS; THE FINAL DECISIONS LIE WITH JUDGES. THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL IN HANDLING FEDERAL-STATE PROBLEMS THAN THE TWO OTHER NATIONS. THIS HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACT THAT AUSTRALIAN AND CANADIAN COURTS HAVE BEEN OVERLY ANXIOUS TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN POWER, WHILE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT VIRTUALLY HAS ABANDONED THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IN THE AREAS COMPARED, ADOPTING INSTEAD A POLICY OF AFFIRMATION OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. THIS BOOK IS DIRECTED FOR USE BY STUDENTS OF COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. FOOTNOTES, A BIBLIOGRAPHY, AN INDEX, AND A TABLE OF CITED CASES ARE PROVIED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--JCP)
Index Term(s): Australia; Canada; Federal government; Judicial review; Relations; State government; United States of America
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=52015

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.