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 25
... follows justify calling it a work of legal rather than political or moral analysis. At the same time it accords a large place for politics, in two senses: Populist constitutional law gains its content from discussions among the people ...
... follows I use a series of problems, some real and some hypothetical, to do so. The RFRA controversy occasionally emerges from the background, to remind us that the issues I discuss are indeed real and important ones that affect the ...
... follow Brown's directives. Relying on Marshall's statement, the Court asserted that Marbury “declared the basic ... follows that the interpretation of [the Constitution] enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of ...
Anda telah mencapai batas penampilan buku ini.
Anda telah mencapai batas penampilan buku ini.