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 53
... What does the First Amendment mean? My aim in this book is to clarify what we have to think about to answer questions of the first type responsibly. Pioneering scholarship by law professors Paul Brest and Sanford Levinson.
... means is not necessarily what the Su- preme Court says it means. If legislators think the Court misinterpreted the Constitution, their oath allows them—indeed, it may require them— to disregard Plyler.” Explaining that answer, however ...
... means for Congress's judgment, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marshall's statement can be read in at least two ways. One has no ...
... means that the Court's decision changes the political dynamics somewhat. But the effect is not obviously large, because the president has to expend some political capital in opposing Congress, and it is not obviously a good thing, in ...
... mean that proponents of restrictions are “against free speech.” It means that people disagree about what free speech requires. This analysis leaves open a wide range in which public officials—with sufficient leadership ability—can ...