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 40
... held a similar proposal unconstitutional? Less often, they have to consider whether to defy a Supreme Court ruling directly. How should we think about these questions? What implications does the Constitution have outside the courts? As ...
... held RFRA unconstitutional.4 The Court invoked traditional ideas about congressional power: The Constitution lists the powers Congress has, and every statute Congress enacts is constitutional only if it falls under one of these ...
... held unconstitutional a Texas statute denying a free public education to children of noncitizens illegally present in this country (Plyler v. Doe).1 In 1994 California's voters approved Proposition 187, an amendment to the state's ...
... held school segregation unconstitutional. The Court then held that states had to desegregate their schools “with all deliberate speed.” Responding to a lawsuit and orders from lower federal courts, the school board in Little Rock ...
... held as a slave in 1836, was taken by his owner to the free territory of Minnesota for several years. After Scott and his owner returned to Missouri, a slave state, Scott sued for his freedom, claiming that he had become free because of ...