current character, they are less definitive and somewhat less satisfactory than the excellent chapters which precede. The first is simply a summary of the United States position on the disarmament of Germany and Japan with a rather cautious appraisal of the implications of the unilateral disarmament of these powers. The second includes an extensive summary of the Report on the International Control of Atomic Energy, issued by the State Department in March 1946, together with an analysis of the Baruch plan and the Soviet proposals on atomic energy control presented to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission in June 1946. Brief reference is also made to the United Nations
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Montesquieu may have been inaccurate in his description of the English system of government of his time and a poor prophet of the developments that were to take place in it, but he certainly proved an excellent forecaster of one of the major trends in American political development. Montesquieu believed that in order to safeguard liberty it was necessary to separate the powers of government and to vest them in legislative, executive, and judicial departments. When the framers of the Constitution of the United States vested the legislative, the judicial, and the executive powers of government in the three departments, they were doubtless following the ideas of Montesquieu as well as generalizing from the hard experiences of early state and Confederation years. The doctrine that a department to which certain powers of government have been assigned may not grant them to another department and thus frustrate the principle of the separation of powers is often called the doctrine of the delegation of powers. This doctrine is a corollary of the doctrine of the separation of powers. It might also be thought of as a sanction of that doctrine. To think of the doctrines of separation and delegation of powers without reference to their qualifications may give one a misleading idea of both Montesquieu and the American system of government, and it is important to remember that Montesquieu himself introduced the idea of checks and balances in his formulation of the doctrine of the separation of powers. He also seems to have anticipated the charge that a rigid separation would be unworkable. Practical observer and reformer that he was, he saw the necessity for making it possible to have the legislative and executive branches of government work together, and he believed that in his proposed system of government he not only had protected liberty, but had made it easy for the government to function effectively. In his discussion of the constitution of England, he stated that: “These three powers should naturally form a state of repose or inaction. But as there is a necessity for movement in the course of human affairs, they are forced to move, but still in concert.”
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
The paragraphs that follow answer the same questions with respect to unconstitutional legislation by Congress that were answered with respect to unconstitutional legislation in the ten states (Colorado, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, and New York) included in my study published in 1943 under the title, Unconstitutional Legislation in Ten Selected States. The congressional statutes and the decisions of the Supreme Court analyzed herein are based upon the list found in Professor Charles Grove Haines, The Doctrine of American Judicial Supremacy. The reason why this list was chosen as the basis for analysis was that it covers approximately the same period, namely, from the beginnings to the early thirties, not including the period of the New Deal which formally began in 1933. This does not mean that there is no point in analyzing the later statutes and decisions, but that for purposes of comparison it was thought safer to restrict this analysis to the same general period for both state and national materials. The three cases under No. 1 in the Haines list have been omitted because no decrees based on invalidity followed their decision.
Journal Article The Mysterious Science of the Law: An Essay on Blackstone's Commentaries showing how Blackstone, employing Eighteenth-Century Ideas of Science, Religion, History, Aesthetics, and Philosophy, made of the Law at Once a Conservative and a Mysterious Science. By Daniel J. Boorstin. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1941. Pp. xviii, 257. $3.00.) and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law, from the Abridged Edition of Wm. Hardcastle Browne, including a Biographical Sketch, Modern American Notes, Common Law Maxims, and a Glossary of Legal Terms. Edited by Bernard C. Gavit, Dean, Indiana University School of Law. (Washington: Washington Law Book Company. 1941. Pp. xx, 1040. $6.00.) Get access The Mysterious Science of the Law: An Essay on Blackstone's Commentaries showing how Blackstone, employing Eighteenth-Century Ideas of Science, Religion, History, Aesthetics, and Philosophy, made of the Law at Once a Conservative and a Mysterious Science. By Boorstin Daniel J.. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1941. Pp. xviii, 257. $3.00.) Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law, from the Abridged Edition of Wm. Hardcastle Browne, including a Biographical Sketch, Modern American Notes, Common Law Maxims, and a Glossary of Legal Terms. Edited by Gavit Bernard C., Dean, Indiana University School of Law. (Washington: Washington Law Book Company. 1941. Pp. xx, 1040. $6.00.) Oliver P. Field Oliver P. Field Indiana University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Historical Review, Volume 47, Issue 3, April 1942, Pages 585–587, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/47.3.585 Published: 01 April 1942
lying characteristics of the Federal Government, its relations to the states, and the constitutional system. The second, &dquo;Bases of the Commonwealth,&dquo; discusses citizen rights and obligations, political parties and elections, and public opinion. The third, &dquo;The National Government,&dquo; considers the organization of the three departments and their practices. The fourth, &dquo;The National Government-Administration,&dquo; explains the working techniques of personnel, revenue, expenditures, relations with business, agriculture, and labor, and the broader fields of social security, conservation, transportation, communications, foreign relations, and national defense. The fifth devotes one hundred and seventy-five pages to state governments in a rather conventional manner, and the final section, some seventy-five pages, discusses the &dquo;Lesser Units of Government.&dquo; The conventional pattern, rather than the functional, is used throughout the book, but especially in treating of the National Government. Operating methods are interwoven with the phase of organization to which they apply. The effort to tie in services rendered to the departments and agencies affected, which is obvious throughout the text, enlivens the interest and makes American citizenship a partnership in government. An understanding background is built for such important institutions as the executive, administrative, legislative, judiciary, and political parties. Similar attention is given to the development which preceded existing agencies and institutions. However, as Professor Zink points out, chapter essays on political history have been distinctly minimized. This plan, which eliminated the usual lengthy discussions of the Articles of Confederation and the Convention of 1787, allows for extended treatment of such subjects as citizenship, politics, and public opinion. The allotment of fifteen pages to the government of cities, and nineteen to their administration, creates an impression that the author’s impatience on the home stretch consigned these important fields to the &dquo;also ran&dquo;; but within these space limitations, he did a very good job. The reviewer confesses that his own interest in these seemingly slighted subjects may be the basis for this plaintive note. A well-selected bibliography follows each chapter, and a fourteen-page index stood up well under random tests. The Federal Constitution appears as the only appendix. The excellent organization of the material, a reflection of Dr. Zink’s long experience in handling this subject matter in his classes, produces a marked satisfaction in reading the text. The easy style and interesting illustrative material should not only minimize student resistance to the assigned &dquo;task,&dquo; but also provide a stimulus to obtaining a realistic picture of the dynamic political atmosphere of these United States. HENRY G. HODGES Cincinnati, Ohio