The Path of the Prerogatives

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY Pub Date : 2024-02-03 DOI:10.1093/ajlh/njad008
John Mikhail
{"title":"The Path of the Prerogatives","authors":"John Mikhail","doi":"10.1093/ajlh/njad008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The path of the prerogatives refers to the process by which the royal prerogative powers outlined in Blackstone’s Commentaries entered into American constitutional law. In 1953, Professor William Crosskey opened up a new window into the Constitution when he pointed out that many of Congress’s enumerated powers had been prerogatives of the British Crown. In The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution, Professor Michael McConnell takes Crosskey’s observation as a starting point of his own more systematic analysis of how the Committee of Detail divided these prerogative powers between Congress and the President. Yet neither Crosskey nor McConnell focuses much attention on the fact that many of these powers were already delegated to the United States by the Articles of Confederation. Nor do they ask whether the founders conceived of these powers primarily as legislative or executive powers, on the one hand, or government powers, on the other—a critical distinction reflected in the text of the Constitution by the Necessary and Proper Clause. This article investigates these topics by tracing the path of the prerogatives from 1774 to 1776 in the writings of James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, John Dickinson, and Thomas Jefferson, highlighting the crucial role played by these powers in Wilson’s 1774 essay on the legislative authority of Parliament, the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence. The article also discusses two further issues that any adequate theory of presidential powers must confront: the distinction between government powers and executive powers, and the status of the United States as a legal corporation, in which implied powers are vested without needing to be enumerated. Finally, the article points to new evidence indicating that Jefferson borrowed specific language and ideas from Wilson when drafting the Declaration of Independence.","PeriodicalId":54164,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njad008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The path of the prerogatives refers to the process by which the royal prerogative powers outlined in Blackstone’s Commentaries entered into American constitutional law. In 1953, Professor William Crosskey opened up a new window into the Constitution when he pointed out that many of Congress’s enumerated powers had been prerogatives of the British Crown. In The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution, Professor Michael McConnell takes Crosskey’s observation as a starting point of his own more systematic analysis of how the Committee of Detail divided these prerogative powers between Congress and the President. Yet neither Crosskey nor McConnell focuses much attention on the fact that many of these powers were already delegated to the United States by the Articles of Confederation. Nor do they ask whether the founders conceived of these powers primarily as legislative or executive powers, on the one hand, or government powers, on the other—a critical distinction reflected in the text of the Constitution by the Necessary and Proper Clause. This article investigates these topics by tracing the path of the prerogatives from 1774 to 1776 in the writings of James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, John Dickinson, and Thomas Jefferson, highlighting the crucial role played by these powers in Wilson’s 1774 essay on the legislative authority of Parliament, the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence. The article also discusses two further issues that any adequate theory of presidential powers must confront: the distinction between government powers and executive powers, and the status of the United States as a legal corporation, in which implied powers are vested without needing to be enumerated. Finally, the article points to new evidence indicating that Jefferson borrowed specific language and ideas from Wilson when drafting the Declaration of Independence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
特权之路
特权之路指的是布莱克斯通《评注》中概述的王室特权进入美国宪法的过程。1953 年,威廉-克劳斯基教授指出,国会的许多列举权力都是英国王室的特权,这为我们了解宪法打开了一扇新窗口。在《不愿称王的总统》(The President Who Would Not Be King:迈克尔-麦康奈尔(Michael McConnell)教授以克罗克基的观点为起点,对详细委员会如何在国会和总统之间划分这些特权进行了更系统的分析。然而,克劳斯基和麦康奈尔都没有过多关注《邦联条例》已将其中许多权力授予美国这一事实。他们也没有追问,建国者是将这些权力主要视为立法权或行政权,还是政府权力--《宪法》文本中的 "必要和适当条款 "反映了这一关键区别。本文通过追溯从 1774 年到 1776 年詹姆斯-威尔逊(James Wilson)、本杰明-富兰克林(Benjamin Franklin)、约翰-迪金森(John Dickinson)和托马斯-杰斐逊(Thomas Jefferson)的著作中特权的发展轨迹来研究这些主题,强调了这些权力在威尔逊 1774 年关于议会立法权的文章、《邦联条款》和《独立宣言》中发挥的关键作用。文章还讨论了任何适当的总统权力理论都必须面对的另外两个问题:政府权力和行政权力之间的区别,以及美国作为法律公司的地位,其中隐含的权力无需列举即可赋予。最后,文章指出有新的证据表明杰斐逊在起草《独立宣言》时借鉴了威尔逊的具体语言和观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Legal History was established in 1957 as the first English-language legal history journal. The journal remains devoted to the publication of articles and documents on the history of all legal systems. The journal is refereed, and members of the Judiciary and the Bar form the advisory board.
期刊最新文献
Letter Writing and Legal Consciousness during World War I Exemplary Damages Practice in Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-Century England Alexander Hamilton's Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Bank Bill The Early Years of Congress’s Anti-Removal Power Movement on Removal: An Emerging Consensus about The First Congress and Presidential Power
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1