The Early Hours of the Post-World War II Model of Constitutional Federalism: The Warren Court and the World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Warren Court is often portrayed as hostile to constitutional federalism. But this critique misses the degree to which the Warren Court's jurisprudence was reparative of the legitimacy of state governments, while at the same time it advanced a new form of post-World War II constitutional federalism. The Warren Court's decisions, especially on apportionment, in important respects strengthened the legitimacy of state governments. It is even arguable that the Court's decisions, by providing the impetus for a more democratically legitimate form of state government, helped contribute to a revival of states as a locus of reform, contributing to the more aggressive judicially enforced federalism limits on national power in the late 20th century. The post World War II model of constitutional federalism, which reaction to the human rights abuses of World War II helped legitimate, guarantees a set of basic individual rights against all levels of government. It is a model that the political branches of the United States government supported in the postwar reconstruction of Germany. In raising the floor of basic constitutional norms designed to protect individuals from unfair treatment by any government, state or federal, the Warren Court both anticipated and reflected a burgeoning recognition of worldwide standards of human rights and human dignity, in international documents and in the new constitutions adopted in other federal systems such as Germany, India, and, later on, Canada. The Court's insight that, in a post-Hitler world, all governments must be held to high standards of protection for the rights of the individual and that such standards were not incompatible with vigorous states in a federal union, was consistent with burgeoning models of post-war constitutional federalism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".