Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science/Law and Social Science: Neglected Portions of Separation of Powers Interactions

主要研究者：Bethany黑石和Micheal W. Giles被忽视的权力分立互动的部分0719945摘要本研究项目评估两个研究问题。首先，在什么情况下国会会因为最高法院的消极对待而改变其立法决定？第二，国会是否能够有效地撤销最高法院的指令？绝大多数三权分立传统的实证研究要么关注最高法院行使复审的决定，要么关注国会对最高法院裁决作出回应的决定。我将战略行为的考虑向后延伸到国会制定立法的最初决定，并向前延伸到响应性立法通过之后。为了评估对国会的司法约束的假设，我将收集1970年至2002年期间在众议院和参议院司法委员会举行听证会的所有法案的数据，以及1954年至1995年期间在任何委员会举行听证会的所有法案的数据，这些法案包含的条款将推翻，修改或澄清1954年至1995年期间最高法院的宪法决定。 我将评估最高法院的意识形态对制定这些拟议法案的决定的影响。为了评估国会废除最高法院决定的能力，我将考虑1954年至2005年期间为回应最高法院的宪法决定而通过的立法的实质和后果。除了将收集的大量新数据外，论文项目还将对国会和权力分立的其他学者做出有价值的方法论贡献。方法上的创新包括国会议程的一个新措施，这是基于在委员会和访问方法授予听证会的法案，学者可以用来定位在一个一维的政策空间的政策结果，该项目的更广泛的影响，包括对国会和法院之间的关系，有影响的分支机构间关系的学者和美国公众的理解进步。该项目涉及法律的学者和政治学家感兴趣的理论和实证问题，但也有助于更实际地评估国会和法院对政策结果的相对影响，并分析法院在多大程度上充当美国政治中的反多数主义力量。

Primary Investigators: Bethany Blackstone and Micheal W. GilesThe Neglected Portions of Separation of Powers Interactions0719945AbstractThis research project assesses two research questions. First, under what conditions does Congress alter its decision to enact legislation because of negative treatment by the Supreme Court? Second, is Congress able to effectively countermand the directives of the Supreme Court? The overwhelming majority of empirical work in the separation of powers (SOP) tradition focuses on either the decision of the Supreme Court to exercise review or the decision of Congress to respond to Supreme Court decisions. I extend the consideration of strategic behavior backwards to the initial decision of Congress to enact legislation and forward to the aftermath of passage of responsive legislation. To assess the hypothesis of a judicial constraint on Congress, I will collect data on all bills granted hearings in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees between 1970 and 2002 and on all bills granted hearings in any committee between 1954 and 1995 that contain provisions that would overrule, modify, or clarify constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court between 1954 and 1995. I will assess the effect of Supreme Court ideology on the decision to enact these proposed bills. To evaluate the ability of Congress to nullify the decisions of the Supreme Court, I will consider the substance and aftermath of legislation passed in response to the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions between 1954 and 2005. In addition to the significant amounts of new data that will be collected, the dissertation project will make methodological contributions that will be of value to other scholars of Congress and the separation of powers. Methodological innovations include a new measure of the congressional agenda that is based on bills granted hearings in committees and accessible methods scholars can employ to locate policy outcomes in a unidimensional policy space.The broader impacts of the project include the advancement of understanding of the relationship between Congress and the Court that has implications for scholars of interbranch relations and the American public. The project addresses theoretical and empirical issues of interest to legal academics and political scientists but also contributes to the more practical evaluation of the relative influence of Congress and the Court on policy outcomes and analysis of the extent to which the Court acts as a countermajoritarian force in American politics.