Coke v. Marshall
COKE v. MARSHALL: The Legal Legacies of Two Uncommon Common Law Jurists
in manuscript
From the book:
One of the most interesting aspects of the family of common law nations—those countries whose law stems from the English legal system—is that, on a number of key issues there is no uniformity or consensus, there is no commonality to the common law. This is most noted in the realm of constitutional law, in which the two dominant countries, the United Kingdom and the United States, adopt opposite polarities in their approach.
The most significant difference is that, whereas the United States, at an early stage, recognized judicial review—namely the capacity of courts to declare laws unconstitutional, based on the authority of an entrenched constitution, with a linked Bill of Rights—in the United Kingdom, there is no written constitution. Thus, the original Bill of Rights, dating back to the 17th century, is an ordinary law, providing no legal basis for nullification of laws. Despite Britain's recent incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the age-old contrast between these two leading nations of the common law still remains, as a reflection of both historical developments and present-day reality.
In this book an analysis is made of these contrasting approaches, basically weaving the legal analysis around two of the most renowned of the Chief Justices of the United States and the United Kingdom, John Marshall and Sir Edward Coke, respectively.