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 37
... Relying on Marshall's statement, the Court asserted that Marbury “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.” Calling that principle “a permanent and ...
... rely on this interpretation of the “political rule” exception to justify supporting Proposition 187. Enactment of immigration reform statutes in 1996 might, however, justify a legislator who invoked the exception in 1997. Ordinary ...
Anda telah mencapai batas penampilan buku ini.
Anda telah mencapai batas penampilan buku ini.
Anda telah mencapai batas penampilan buku ini.