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 47
... sense need not occasion deep concern about the preservation of our liberties. We can also take the Constitution away from the courts and embed it in our own deliberations. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 describe how we can think about the ...
... sense of how people deal with the Constitution away from the courts if it is to provide an accurate account of our constitutional practice. I attempt here to develop an approach to thinking about the Constitution away from the courts in ...
... senses: Populist constitutional law gains its content from discussions among the people in ordinary political forums, and political leaders play a significant role in assisting the people as we conduct those discussions. I emphasize ...
... sense that constituents are troubled by politicians' positions that seem to them incompatible with the thin Constitution's principles. Perhaps not every constituent is concerned, and perhaps many are not troubled enough to throw the ...
... of Cooper v. Aaron. There was no judicial order directing Governor Faubus to desegregate the Little Rock schools. So, in the narrowest sense, Faubus's position was entirely consistent with Lincoln's: At least 14 CHAPTER ONE.