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 35.
3. lappuse
... argued that Supreme Court decisions were not “binding on all persons and parts of government henceforth and forevermore.”2 Even more telling, the Senate Judiciary Committee was sufficiently alarmed by the Meese speech that Supreme Court ...
... argued that Supreme Court decisions were not “binding on all persons and parts of government henceforth and forevermore.”2 Even more telling, the Senate Judiciary Committee was sufficiently alarmed by the Meese speech that Supreme Court ...
10. lappuse
... argued for judicial monopoly on constitutional, or even legal, matters. His speech responded to critics who opposed giving power to a commission to investigate abuses by railroads. He feared that without such powers in the hands of a ...
... argued for judicial monopoly on constitutional, or even legal, matters. His speech responded to critics who opposed giving power to a commission to investigate abuses by railroads. He feared that without such powers in the hands of a ...
12. lappuse
... argued that when it interprets the Constitution, it “calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.”21 Similarly, in a 1997 decision on ...
... argued that when it interprets the Constitution, it “calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.”21 Similarly, in a 1997 decision on ...
18. lappuse
... argued that the courts were guardians of individual and minority rights. The Senate Judiciary Committee, vigorously rejecting the courtpacking plan, indulged in hyperbole by stating, “Minority political groups, no less than religious ...
... argued that the courts were guardians of individual and minority rights. The Senate Judiciary Committee, vigorously rejecting the courtpacking plan, indulged in hyperbole by stating, “Minority political groups, no less than religious ...
23. lappuse
... argued that the issue of slavery could not be decided merely by reading the Constitution or what the courts had said about it: “Let the people change, and the Constitution will change also; for the Constitution is but the shadow, while ...
... argued that the issue of slavery could not be decided merely by reading the Constitution or what the courts had said about it: “Let the people change, and the Constitution will change also; for the Constitution is but the shadow, while ...
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