Taking the Constitution Away from the CourtsPrinceton University Press, 24 Jul 2000 - 256 halaman Here a leading scholar in constitutional law, Mark Tushnet, challenges hallowed American traditions of judicial review and judicial supremacy, which allow U.S. judges to invalidate "unconstitutional" governmental actions. Many people, particularly liberals, have "warm and fuzzy" feelings about judicial review. They are nervous about what might happen to unprotected constitutional provisions in the chaotic worlds of practical politics and everyday life. By examining a wide range of situations involving constitutional rights, Tushnet vigorously encourages us all to take responsibility for protecting our liberties. Guarding them is not the preserve of judges, he maintains, but a commitment of the citizenry to define itself as "We the People of the United States." The Constitution belongs to us collectively, as we act in political dialogue with each other--whether in the street, in the voting booth, or in the legislature as representatives of others. |
Dari dalam buku
Hasil 1-5 dari 32
... decide whether a race-based classification can satisfy “strict scrutiny,” which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor assures us is not “fatal in fact,” by promoting a “compelling state interest” in a “narrowly tailored” way.16 These formulas are ...
... decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, any more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a ...
... deciding whether a practice violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on “cruel and unusual punishments.” The Court looks to the statutes enacted by state legislatures in determining what those standards are. In holding unconstitutional the ...
Anda telah mencapai batas penampilan buku ini.
Anda telah mencapai batas penampilan buku ini.