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 55
... protected by the individualized hearings provided in unemployment cases. So, the Court concluded, Mrs. Sherbert should get the benefits. The Court applied the “compelling state interest” test over the next decades when people claimed ...
... protected people only against regulations targeted at religious practices, not from “the incidental effect[s] of a ... protection of religious exercise. But, the Court said, RFRA could not reasonably be understood as “enforcing” free ...
... protection clause.” The reason for referring only to fundamental guarantees and not specific constitutional provisions is to avoid the suggestion that the thin Constitution consists of, or is the same as, what the Supreme Court has said ...
... protects rights that it has taken centuries of struggle for people to appreciate as truly fundamental. Perhaps more important, the nation's commitment to the thin Constitution constitutes us as the people of the United States, and ...
... protection of free speech. A few years later Jefferson explained his position to Abigail Adams, the wife of his Federalist adversary John Adams.31 “You think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But ...