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

Emory University, Atlanta GA

Investigators

Abstract

Primary Investigators: Bethany Blackstone and Micheal W. Giles The Neglected Portions of Separation of Powers Interactions 0719945 Abstract This 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.