Re: The Initiation of Judicial Review

[Robert Justin Lipkin]

       In my view, one should approach the great man view warily; but that doesn't entail it is always inapplicable.  Although I agree there are important conceptual and historical complexities here, I would ask those who do not think Marshall had a very significant effect on constitutional development the following questions: (1) In your view, does any historical figure--great man or woman--have a sufficiently profound effect so that had he or she never lived the course of history undoubtedly would have been different? (2) If so, what do you mean by such assertions?, (3) Further, how do you identify such characters? (4) If not, please state your own conception of historical (and constitutional, of course) change.

       In other words, is the argument that this? "Marshall was not a terribly influential constitutional actor because he fails to exhibit the critical features of such characters." Of is the argument "Marshall was not a terribly influential constitutional actors because no such actors exist."?

       I am sufficiently pragmatist to believe that even though most rhapsodic depictions of influential historical characters should be regarded with a grain of truth, sometimes one runs into the genuine article.

Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware