| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 109.3

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 172 words from this article are provided below; about 666 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 109.3 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Canada and the United States

George I. Lovell. Legislative Deferrals: Statutory Ambiguity, Judicial Power, and American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2003. Pp. xxi, 290. $65.00.

George I. Lovell's careful analysis of the legislative history of labor laws and the relationship between Congress and the judiciary will interest political scientists, historians, and legal scholars. His reappraisal of interest group activity surrounding the Erdman Act, Clayton Act, Norris-LaGuardia Act, and Wagner Act and the motivations of lawmakers who enacted those statutes provides a significant contribution to labor's political history. Lovell also draws general conclusions about the interaction between Congress and courts. Lovell argues that Congress often delegates policy making to judges without formulating a precise intent about how courts should deploy that power. Although he claims that this insight brings into question traditional methods of interpretation, his conclusions are compatible with most current legal thinking about statutory interpretation. Nonetheless, this book is important to legal scholars because it provides a well-researched example of legislative delegation to courts.

. . .

There are about 666 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.