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 23
... secular left persuaded Congress to respond. Stating that Congress wanted to “restore the compelling interest test” established in Mrs. Sherbert's case, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) directed the courts to apply ...
... Jefferson had: The principle of rights can rest on secular grounds even though Jefferson offered a deistic justification.19 Frederick Douglass's comment on the Dred Scott decision restated these AGAINST JUDICIAL SUPREMACY 11.
Alcanzaste el límite de visualización de este libro.
Alcanzaste el límite de visualización de este libro.
Alcanzaste el límite de visualización de este libro.