Taking the Constitution Away from the CourtsPrinceton University Press, 2000 M07 24 - 256 páginas 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. |
Dentro del libro
Resultados 1-5 de 59
... action violated her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.1 According to the Court, denying the unemployment benefits did indeed “burden” her free exercise of religion: Forcing her ...
... action violated its rights under RFRA: The denial burdened the church's religious exercise by making it much more difficult for the church to serve all its parishioners, and, the church said, it was not the least restrictive way of ...
... actions.”8 Lincoln was an incredibly subtle constitutionalist, and his statements contain nearly everything we need to work out a theory that would explain the result in Cooper v. Aaron without committing us to a theory of judicial ...
... action, it “vetoes” the official's action. The Supreme Court held that legislative vetoes were unconstitutional because they did not satisfy the thick Constitution's requirement that all “Laws” be submitted to the president for ...
... action programs, for example, while his adversaries believe that the same principle justifies such programs.24 The people may indeed divide over whether restricting access via the Internet to sexually explicit material is consistent ...