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 24
... federal court promptly held this part of Proposition 187 unconstitutional and barred state officials from enforcing it.2 Consider the position of a state legislator after the voters approved Proposition 187. The legislature has to enact ...
... federal courts, the school board in Little Rock, Arkansas, developed a plan to desegregate the city's schools gradually. The state's governor, Orval Faubus, opposed desegregation, and generated a big public controversy over Little ...
... federal law and federal courts, and failing to utilize state law enforcement agencies and judicial processes to maintain public peace.” The lower federal courts found that the public disorder was a reason to delay desegregation. The ...
Anda telah mencapai batas penampilan buku ini.
Anda telah mencapai batas penampilan buku ini.