Madison v. Marshall : Popular Sovereignty, Natural Law, and the United States Constitution

Guy Padula's work suggests that the answers to heated political debate can only be found by scrutinizing the past. This text puts the spotlight on the interpretive intent of America's founding fathers to discover if the consent of the people or the rule of justice triumphs.

Popular Sovereignty or Natural Law? At a time of constitutional crisis in the American body politic, Guy Padula''s timely and stimulating new work explores whether the answers to today''s heated political debate can be found by scrutinizing the past. In Madison v. Marshall Padula turns the spotlight on the interpretive intent of America''s Founding Fathers to discover if the consent of the people or the rule of justice triumphs. Comparing the constitutional theories of the Founding generation''s two preeminent constitutional authorities, Padula shatters the Originalist myth that Madison and Marshall shared a compatible constitutional jurisprudence. He concludes that the meaning of the Constitution has been contested from the outset. This is essential reading for legal scholars, political scientists and historians seeking to learn more about the fundamental nature of U.S. law and how it should be interpreted.