The Use of Custom in Resolving Separation of Powers Disputes
![handle is hein.journals/bulr64 and id is 123 raw text is: THE USE OF CUSTOM IN RESOLVING SEPARATION
OF POWERS DISPUTESt
MICHAEL J. GLENNON*
[Als long as [the Constitution] continues to exist in its present form, it
speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent
with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers ....
-Chief Justice Roger Taney in
Dred Scott.
[The provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical Jbrmulas having
their essence in their jorm; they are organic living institutions transplanted
from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered
not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their
origin and the line of their growth.
-Justice Oliver Wendell Homes in
Gompers v. United States.2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................ 110
I. THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE: A CONSTITUTIONAL
O AKLAN D ? ............................................... 112
A. RELIANCE UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT ............ 112
B. RELIANCE UPON THE FRAMERS' INTENT ................. 114
C. RELIANCE UPON CUSTOM ................................ 115
11. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT'S APPROACH ........................ 117
A. WEAKNESSES OF EACH APPROACH ..................... 117
1. THE TEXTUAL APPROACH ........................... 117
2. THE INTENTIONALIST APPROACH .................... 119
3. THE ADAPTIVIST APPROACH ........................ 121
4. SUM M ARY ......................................... 122
B. AMBIGUITIES IN THE ADJUDICATION OF SEPARATION OF
POW ERS DISPUTES .................................... 124
111. A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING ........... 127
A. EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS ............... 127
t © 1984 by Michael J. Glennon.
* Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law. The author grate-
fully acknowledges the research assistance of Robert Klingler, Joan Schleef, and
Timothy Sullivan.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 426 (1856).
2 232 U.S. 604, 610 (1914).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/bulr64&div=11&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Use of Custom in Resolving Separation of Powers Disputes
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most