Book Review: Constitution Making: Conflict and Consensus in the Federal Convention of 1787. by Calvin C. Jillson.

Book review: Constitution Making: Conflict and Consensus in the Federal Convention of 1787. By Calvin C. Jillson. New York: Agathon Press. 1988. Pp. xiv, 242. Reviewed by: Richard S. Kay

Book Review: Constitutional Brinkmanship: Amending the Constitution by National Convention. by Russell L. Caplan.

Book review: Constitutional Brinkmanship: Amending the Constitution by National Convention. By Russell L. Caplan. New York: Oxford University Press. 1988. Pp. xxii, 240. Reviewed by: Richard S. Kay

In Memoriam, Remembering Dean Phillip Blumberg

Phillip I. Blumberg served as Dean of the University of Connecticut School of Law from 1974 to 1984. These remarks were first delivered to the University of Connecticut School of Law faculty at the Faculty Workshop held on November 10, 2021. They have been lightly edited for publication

Legitimacy of the Constitutional Judge and Theories of Interpretation in the United States

The Legitimacy of the Constitutional Judge and Theories of Interpretation in the United States The paper addresses the sources of legitimacy of a judge exercising the power to declare acts of government invalid on constitutional grounds, and their relationship to theories of interpretation of the constitutional texts

Making Sense of the Prejudgment Seizure Cases

The purpose of this article is to examine critically four recent Supreme Court cases on prejudgment seizure, Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., Fuentes v. Shevin, Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., and North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc. These cases have been cited as an arch-example of inconsistency, even irrationality, in constitutional doctrine. Members of the Supreme Court and numerous scholars have expressed chagrin at the apparent irresponsible obscurity at this difficult intersection of creditors\u27 remedies and constitutional rights. We believe, however, that the search for reasonable and rational constitutional standards is not a hopeless task. We hope to show that there are emerging recognizable, if still indistinct, tests, against which state schemes for balancing the prejudgment rights of creditors and debtors may be measured. In short, we will assert that the recent prejudgment seizure cases, read together sympathetically, make sense