1. See Linde, H. A. p. 118Google Scholar (and note) for a review of states where advisory opinions can be issued. In Britain, there is a bar similar to that at the US Federal level, de Smith, S. A., judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th edEvans, J. M. (Stevens and Sons, 1980) pp. 504–509. It is however sometimes simply ignored, e.g. Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech A.H.A. and the D.H.S.S. [1985] 830.Google Scholar

2. See also Kastenmeier, R. W. and Remington, M. J., p. 84.Google Scholar

3. He cites Llewellyn, K. N., The Common Tradition: Deciding Appeals (Little Brown, 1960)Google Scholar; Posner, R. A., The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform (Harvard University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; and, Hart, H. M. and Sacks, A., ‘The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law’ (Harvard Law School, 1958).Google Scholar

4. Gadamer, H.-G., Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1982)Google Scholar; Hirsch, E. D., Validity in Interpretation (Yale University Press)Google Scholar; and Brest, P., ‘The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding’, 60 Boston University Law Review 204, 221–224 (1980).Google Scholar

5. Compare Laing, L. H., ‘The Transplantation of the British Parliament’, (1958) Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 11, 405–423Google Scholar; and Needler, M., ‘On the Dangers of Copying from the British’, (1962) Political Science Quarterly, vol. 77, 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Bradshaw, K. and Pring, D., Parliament and Congress, (3rd ed) (Quartet Books, 1981).Google Scholar

6. Posner, R. A., The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform (Harvard University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

7. And see Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

8. Hirschman, A. O., Shifting Involvements, Private Interest and Public Action, (Martin Robinson and Princeton University Press, 1982) p. 69.Google Scholar

9. Frankfurt, H. G., ‘Freedom of the will and the concept of the person’, 68 Journal of Philosophy (1971) pp. 5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sen, A. ‘Rational fools: a critique of the behavioural foundations of economic theory’, 6 Philosophy and Public Affairs (1977) p. 336.Google Scholar

10. Jacob, J. M., Doctors and Rules: A Sociology of Professional Values (Routledge, 1988) p. 76.Google Scholar

11. And see Katzmann, , p. 18.Google Scholar

12. And see also Davidson, R. H., pp. 100–102.Google Scholar

13. See Jacob, , Doctors and Rules, pp. 173 et seq.Google Scholar

14. Dicey, A. V., The Law of the Constitution, p. 407.Google Scholar

15. He cites Neustadt, R. E., Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership (Wiley, 1960) p. 33.Google Scholar

16. Included in their references are The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789–1800. vols. 2, 3 (Columbia Press, forthcoming).

17. Although it seems unlikely that the Founding Fathers would willingly follow the Stuart precedents it is useful to compare Havighurst, A. F., ‘The Judiciary and Politics in the Reign of Charles II, Pt. I 1660-76’, (1950) 66 Law Quarterly Review, 62 at pp. 65–66f.Google Scholar And see also on the independence of thejudiciary more generally at that time: Havighurst, A. F., ‘The Judiciary and Politics in the Reign of Charles Pt. II, 1676-85’, (1950) 66 Law Quarterly Review, 522Google Scholar; and Havighurst, A. F., ‘James II and the Twelve Men in Scarlet’, (1953) 69 Law Quarterly Review, 522.Google Scholar For more recent times see: Holdsworth, W., ‘The Constitutional Position of the Judges’, (1932) 48 Law Quarterly Review, 29–30Google Scholar; and, Holdsworth, W., ‘His Majesty's Judges’ (1932) 173 Law Times 336.Google Scholar In a Commonwealth context see: Lederman, W., ‘The Independence of the Judiciary’, (1956) vol. 36 Canadian Bar Review 769Google Scholar; de Smith, S. A., The New Commonwealth and its Constitutions (1964)Google Scholar; Kamau, G. and Ojwang, J. B., ‘Judges and the Rule of Law in the Framework of Politics: the Kenya Case’, [1979] Public Law 254–281Google Scholar; and SirHyatali, I., ‘The Protection of Judicial Independence’, (1983) Civil Justice Quarterly, vol. 2, 76–82.Google Scholar And see generally, Eckhoff, T., ‘Impartiality, Separation of Powers, Judicial Independence’, (1965) 9 Scandinavian Studies in Law, 11–48.Google Scholar

18. 42 Stat. 837. It was amended in 1939, 53 Stat. 1223 and several times thereafter. See Kastenmeier, R. W. and Remington, M. J., pp. 61–63.Google Scholar

19. As to the state courts, see Linde, H. A., pp. 119–20.Google Scholar

20. See Jacob, , Doctors and Rules, particularly pp. 188 et seq.Google Scholar