The Democratic ConstitutionOxford University Press, 2004. gada 26. aug. - 320 lappuses Constitutional law is clearly shaped by judicial actors. But who else contributes? Scholars in the past have recognized that the legislative branch plays a significant role in determining structural issues, such as separation of powers and federalism, but stopped there--claiming that only courts had the independence and expertise to safeguard individual and minority rights. In this readable and engaging narrative, the authors identify the nuts and bolts of the national dialogue and relate succinct examples of how elected officials and the general public often dominate the Supreme Court in defining the Constitution's meaning. Making use of case studies on race, privacy, federalism, war powers, speech, and religion, Devins and Fisher demonstrate how elected officials uphold individual rights in such areas as religious liberty and free speech as well as, and often better than, the courts. This fascinating debunking of judicial supremacy argues that nonjudicial contributions to constitutional interpretation make the Constitution more stable, more consistent with constitutional principles, and more protective of individual and minority rights. |
No grāmatas satura
1.–5. rezultāts no 79.
vii. lappuse
... Supreme Court or lower courts say about the Constitution, we also examine the contributions by the elected branches, the states, interest groups, and the general public. The result is a richer, more dynamic, and more accurate picture of ...
... Supreme Court or lower courts say about the Constitution, we also examine the contributions by the elected branches, the states, interest groups, and the general public. The result is a richer, more dynamic, and more accurate picture of ...
viii. lappuse
... Supreme Court, and the Abortion Debate (Johns Hopkins, 1996) is also devoted ... us. Through grants, sabbaticals, and the like, we have also benefited from ... us feel that we were working in the same office, not hundreds of miles away ...
... Supreme Court, and the Abortion Debate (Johns Hopkins, 1996) is also devoted ... us. Through grants, sabbaticals, and the like, we have also benefited from ... us feel that we were working in the same office, not hundreds of miles away ...
5. lappuse
... U.S. Supreme Court has said.17 These multiple decision points give citizens—operating through their state legislatures, governors, and state courts—an opportunity to think independently and creatively about constitutional issues. In ...
... U.S. Supreme Court has said.17 These multiple decision points give citizens—operating through their state legislatures, governors, and state courts—an opportunity to think independently and creatively about constitutional issues. In ...
9. lappuse
... U.S. Supreme Court, which periodically decides the meaning of the Constitution and communicates that fact to a waiting nation. Advocates of this model occasionally acknowledge that Congress, the President, and the states may participate ...
... U.S. Supreme Court, which periodically decides the meaning of the Constitution and communicates that fact to a waiting nation. Advocates of this model occasionally acknowledge that Congress, the President, and the states may participate ...
10. lappuse
Neal Devins, Louis Fisher. of American history knows that the Court has been ... Supreme Court invokes the Constitution, whether legitimately or not, as to ... U.S. Constitution. For Bork critic Ronald Dworkin, “The Supreme Court in the ...
Neal Devins, Louis Fisher. of American history knows that the Court has been ... Supreme Court invokes the Constitution, whether legitimately or not, as to ... U.S. Constitution. For Bork critic Ronald Dworkin, “The Supreme Court in the ...
Saturs
3 | |
9 | |
2 Who Participates? | 29 |
3 Federalism | 53 |
4 Separation of Powers | 77 |
5 The War Power | 103 |
6 Privacy | 127 |
7 Race | 149 |
8 Speech | 173 |
9 Religion | 195 |
10 The Ongoing Dialogue | 217 |
Notes | 241 |
Case Index | 289 |
Subject Index | 297 |
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
1st Sess abortion administration affirmative action American appointments approved argued Att’y Gen Attorney authority bill Bork brief Bush challenge Chief Justice civil rights Clinton Commerce Clause Cong congressional constitutional amendment constitutional interpretation constitutional law constitutionality Court rulings Court’s debate decided declared Democrats desegregation disputes doctrine Dred Scott Earl Warren Education efforts elected branches elected government elected officials enacted example executive federal courts flag framers freedom independent counsel interest groups issue judges judicial review judicial supremacy Justice Department lawmakers legislative veto limited litigation Louis Fisher members of Congress ment military Nixon peyote pocket veto President presidential protections Public Papers Reagan recess appointments regulation Rehnquist rejected Republican resolution role Ruth Bader Ginsburg school desegregation school prayer separation of powers speech Stat statute statutory Supreme Court decisions tion tional U.S. Supreme Court unconstitutional United upheld War Powers Resolution Warren Washington Post White House