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 43.
11. lappuse
... declared the legislation to be unconstitutional.11 The not-so-hidden message in statutes that contain expedited procedures: We're not sure about the constitutionality of what we have done. But the statute is politically popular and we ...
... declared the legislation to be unconstitutional.11 The not-so-hidden message in statutes that contain expedited procedures: We're not sure about the constitutionality of what we have done. But the statute is politically popular and we ...
12. lappuse
... declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.”19 In 1962 and 1969, the Court declared itself the “ultimate interpreter of the Constitution” in controversial ...
... declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.”19 In 1962 and 1969, the Court declared itself the “ultimate interpreter of the Constitution” in controversial ...
13. lappuse
... declare unconstitutional an act of Congress, the President, or state government. Judicial review is implied in certain language in the Constitution and comments by the framers, but it is largely judicial review against the states, not ...
... declare unconstitutional an act of Congress, the President, or state government. Judicial review is implied in certain language in the Constitution and comments by the framers, but it is largely judicial review against the states, not ...
14. lappuse
... declaration in Marbury that it could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. In 1792, federal judges objected to a congressional statute that required them to serve as commissioners on claims settlement. Because their decisions could ...
... declaration in Marbury that it could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. In 1792, federal judges objected to a congressional statute that required them to serve as commissioners on claims settlement. Because their decisions could ...
15. lappuse
... declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, “but there is no adjudication of the Supreme Court itself upon the point.”36 Soon there would be. The Misunderstood. Marbury. Precedent Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court declared a portion ...
... declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, “but there is no adjudication of the Supreme Court itself upon the point.”36 Soon there would be. The Misunderstood. Marbury. Precedent Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court declared a portion ...
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