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 58.
vii. lappuse
... challenged the Court's status as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Some scholars argue that Court rulings have played no meaningful role in effectuating social change and, as such, call for the Court to issue “minimalist ...
... challenged the Court's status as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Some scholars argue that Court rulings have played no meaningful role in effectuating social change and, as such, call for the Court to issue “minimalist ...
3. lappuse
... challenge. For example, when reporting that six out of ten Americans thought the Supreme Court was the ultimate constitutional arbiter, newspapers simply noted that these six were “correct.”1 Likewise, journalists and academics alike ...
... challenge. For example, when reporting that six out of ten Americans thought the Supreme Court was the ultimate constitutional arbiter, newspapers simply noted that these six were “correct.”1 Likewise, journalists and academics alike ...
5. lappuse
... challenged the Court's status as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Nevertheless, because newspapers and constitutional law texts typically treat Court interpretations of the Constitution as supreme, much of our study explains ...
... challenged the Court's status as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Nevertheless, because newspapers and constitutional law texts typically treat Court interpretations of the Constitution as supreme, much of our study explains ...
9. lappuse
... challenged this model,1 judicial supremacy nonetheless remains the dominant model taught in undergraduate, graduate ... challenging unpopular Court decisions. Roots of Judicial Hegemony Justice Robert Jackson once said that decisions by ...
... challenged this model,1 judicial supremacy nonetheless remains the dominant model taught in undergraduate, graduate ... challenging unpopular Court decisions. Roots of Judicial Hegemony Justice Robert Jackson once said that decisions by ...
11. lappuse
... challenge the Court gives way to political expediency.10 Congress also encourages the belief in judicial supremacy ... challenges in the courts. Congress resorted to that practice four times from 1985 to 1996, and on all four occasions ...
... challenge the Court gives way to political expediency.10 Congress also encourages the belief in judicial supremacy ... challenges in the courts. Congress resorted to that practice four times from 1985 to 1996, and on all four occasions ...
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