Yesterday, I completed my series of posts on departmentalism and judicial supremacy.  My main point is that the issue turns largely on the history and that, while more research is needed, one real possibility is that the correct rule is a moderate judicial supremacy.

Here are the original five posts:

Departmentalism versus Judicial Supremacy – Part I: Some Preliminary Distinctions

Departmentalism versus Judicial Supremacy – Part II: Getting from Departmentalism to Judicial Supremacy

Departmentalism versus Judicial Supremacy – Part III: Some Thoughts on the History

Departmentalism versus Judicial Supremacy – Part IV: The Argument Based on the Constitution Being a New System

Departmentalism versus Judicial Supremacy – Part V: The Content of the Executive and Legislative Obligation to Follow Judicial Precedent

And here is one more responding to Michael Paulsen:

Paulsen on Departmentalism versus Judicial Supremacy