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 32.
4. lappuse
... desegregation by statute than by judicial action.10 Populist resistance to Court decision making often prompts the Court to recalibrate its position, reflected in the Court's acceptance of Roosevelt's New Deal initiatives after the so ...
... desegregation by statute than by judicial action.10 Populist resistance to Court decision making often prompts the Court to recalibrate its position, reflected in the Court's acceptance of Roosevelt's New Deal initiatives after the so ...
6. lappuse
... desegregation being the most prominent example), the elected branches support Court decision making and, in so doing, encourage the Justices to provide additional constitutional safeguards. At other times, however, the Court yields to ...
... desegregation being the most prominent example), the elected branches support Court decision making and, in so doing, encourage the Justices to provide additional constitutional safeguards. At other times, however, the Court yields to ...
11. lappuse
... Deal laws (followed by judicial reversal), the desegregation case of 1954 (of limited impact), and Roe v. Wade (from which the Court conducted a partial retreat in 1992). In 1998, in describing JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AS ORTHODOXY 11.
... Deal laws (followed by judicial reversal), the desegregation case of 1954 (of limited impact), and Roe v. Wade (from which the Court conducted a partial retreat in 1992). In 1998, in describing JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AS ORTHODOXY 11.
12. lappuse
... desegregation. By refusing to let black students enter Little Rock's Central High School, Faubus ignored a lower court order. In response, the Supreme Court proclaimed that Marbury “declared the basic principle that the federal ...
... desegregation. By refusing to let black students enter Little Rock's Central High School, Faubus ignored a lower court order. In response, the Supreme Court proclaimed that Marbury “declared the basic principle that the federal ...
20. lappuse
... desegregation cases. But some of the delay here was attributed to the Court's decision to announce a strong position in Brown I and a weaker one in Brown II, the implementing ruling a year later. Several phrases in the latter decision ...
... desegregation cases. But some of the delay here was attributed to the Court's decision to announce a strong position in Brown I and a weaker one in Brown II, the implementing ruling a year later. Several phrases in the latter decision ...
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