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 50
... theory must make 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 ...
... Theory,” 46 Case Western Res. L.Rev. 845 (1996). Even those who read every word in these earlier publications—a universe that includes only me, I think—would find that the presentation here offers a more complete and complex view. In ...
... theory that would explain the result in Cooper v. Aaron without committing us to a theory of judicial supremacy that would be inconsistent with populist constitutional law.9 THE CONSTITUTION, THICK AND THIN Developing the argument ...
... theory of judicial supremacy without undermining the nation's most fundamental commitments even if they thereby do provoke a constitutional crisis. The range is not infinite, however. Law professor Geoffrey Miller suggests that a ...
... theory of judicial supremacy.35 The limits on judicial review show at most that, as we understand our system today, the domain of judicial supremacy might not be as extensive as we can imagine it to be. As law professor Michael Stokes ...