This accessible and detailed book takes an interdisciplinary approach in exploring the position of national parliaments in the EU polity and in particular their position within the EU governance framework. Adam Cygan analyzes the impact of subsidiarity monitoring upon national parliaments and to what extent this provides new opportunities for national parliaments to be engaged in, and exert influence over, the EU legislative process. While the post-Lisbon position of national parliaments may have improved, this book questions whether national parliaments can really be considered as central actors in EU affairs. The author also queries whether subsidiarity monitoring has the capacity to create a collective bloc of horizontal actors which exert effective accountability over the EU legislative process. Accountability, Parliamentarism and Transparency in the EU will strongly appeal to academics, parliamentarians/parliamentary officials working in EU affairs, as well as EU civil servants. Contents: Introduction 1. National Parliaments, Accountability and Transparency in a European Perspective 2. European Integration and Deparliamentarisation 3. National Parliaments in the EU Treaties 4. The Ordinary Legislative Process and National Parliaments 5. Subsidiarity as a Regulatory Principle in EU Law 6. Subsidiarity Control after Lisbon 7. Accountability and Legitimacy in a Multi-Level Context 8. National Parliaments after Lisbon: A New Dawn of Accountability or Remaining on the Periphery? Bibliography Index

The Ninth Amendment holds that every right not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution belongs to the states or to the individual. Further, those rights held by the government should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights held by the people. As in other areas of contention between federal power and states' rights, the Ninth Amendment has become subject to activist Supreme Court interpretation whereby the traditional model of federalism, in which states had meaningful public policy prerogatives, has given way to a model in which states become mere extensions of the U. S. government. In this volume, Marshall DeRosa provides a thorough analysis of Supreme Court unenumerated rights policy and offers suggestions toward reestablishing American federalism as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. The book opens with a review and analysis of current debates over Ninth Amendment rights and then utilizes the privileges and immunities clauses as demonstrative of the traditional relationship between the states' police powers and unenumerated fundamental rights. DeRosa then considers the critical role of academia in shifting public policy away from popular control and toward the judiciary. Later chapters include national and state case studies as instances of judicial creativity, an examination of the effects of Ninth Amendment jurisprudence on the Second Amendment as it bears on the gun control debate, and a comparative analysis of contrasting theories on the status of unenumerated rights. In his conclusion DeRosa offers some prescriptive thoughts on how to restore the original constitutional concept of popular consent as a remedy to an increasingly unaccountable federal judiciary. By restoring the Ninth Amendment to the context of American federalism, this volume constitutes a major contribution to contemporary scholarship, challenging a corpus of commentary that either ignores, misunderstands, or misrepresents the relevance of popular control in the articulation of unenumerated rights. The Ninth Amendment and the Politics of Creative Jurisprudence will be of interest to political scientists, historians, legal theorists, and political practitioners.

At the heart of constitutional interpretation is the struggle between, on the one hand, fidelity to founding meanings, and, on the other hand, creative interpretation to suit the context and needs of an evolving society. This book considers the recent growth of constitutional cases in Singapore in the last ten years. It examines the underpinnings of Singapore's constitutional system, explores how Singapore courts have dealt with issues related to rights and power, and sets developments in Singapore in the wider context of new thinking and constitutional developments worldwide. It argues that Singapore is witnessing a shift in legal and political culture as both judges and citizens display an increasing willingness to engage with constitutional ideas and norms.

Fresh, modern, and practical, Public Law provides law undergraduates with a unique approach to constitutional and administrative law, aptly demonstrating why this is an exciting time to be studying the subject. Writing in a fluid, succinct style, the authors carve a logical pathway through the key areas studied on the LLB, guiding students to a solid understanding of the fundamental principles. This theoretical grounding is then rooted in reality, with each concept applied to a hypothetical scenario (included at the start of each chapter) to set it into a practical context. While this practical element helps students to understand how the law applies and develop problem-solving skills, a trio of supportive learning features also encourages active engagement with and a critical appreciation of public law. 'Key case' boxes highlight and analyse the significant case law in each area; 'Counterpoint' boxes flag alternative viewpoints and areas of debate; and 'Pause for reflection' boxes prompt readers to consider the impact of laws, and what potential developments and reforms may lie ahead. Public Law's modern approach and unique combination of practical application and theoretically critical discussion makes it the ideal choice for students seeking to understand concepts not only in the abstract but in practice, helping them to develop the skills they need to succeed at university and beyond. Digital formats and resources This third edition is supported by online resources and is available for students or institutions to purchase in a variety of digital formats. - The e-book offers a mobile experience and convenient access along with functionality tools, navigation features and links that offer extra learning support: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/ebooks - Online resources to support the book feature multiple choice questions, guidance on approaching and analysing the real life scenarios in the book, legal updates, and links to useful material elsewhere on the web.

While their use and significance have increased in recent decades, constitutional preambles have received only scant attention in academic literature. This book presents a uniquely quantitative and qualitative analysis of all the preambles currently in force around the world and addresses fascinating questions concerning their occurrence, content, style, function and legal status. Studying preambles not only helps us understand the phenomenon itself, but also teaches us more about constitutions and constitutional systems in which they are situated. Constitutional Preambles illuminates the great variety that constitutional preambles display. The authors discuss the different styles, legal and non-legal functions, and content of the preambles, as well as analysing their use in the courts. This work also contains a carefully curated anthology of the world's preambles in English.

Modern constitutionalism as an idea and practice is facing great uncertainty in current times. Scholarly debates focus predominantly on constitutions beyond the state, while the predicament of domestic constitutionalism is much less considered. This volume contributes to a theoretically informed analysis of the key challenges and changes affecting domestic constitutionalism in Europe and beyond, departing from the idea of 'constitutional acceleration' or the increased propensity of different actors to engage in (formal) reform of the constitutional order. The volume points to a fundamental change in the function of constitutions in that constitutions themselves are increasingly subjects of political contestation rather than framing political debates. The collection of essays addresses a range of critical challenges - including societal acceleration, depoliticization, civic engagement, multi-faceted constituent power, modernization, populism and nationalism, and transnationalization. The volume includes a variety of disciplinary, and in some cases interdisciplinary, approaches, including (political) sociology, political science, constitutional law, and constitutional and legal theory, and will be of interest to researchers and students in any of these areas. Case studies focus on the EU and the wider European context, and include highly relevant but little known or ill-understood cases, such as the recent constitutional events in Iceland, Italy, or Romania, and cases of democratic reversal, such as Hungary, while also engaging with traditional but rapidly changing cases of constitutional interest, such as the UK.

State judicial elections are governed by a unique set of rules that enforce longstanding norms of judicial independence by limiting how judicial candidates campaign. These rules have been a key part of recent debates over judicial elections and have been the subject of several U.S. Supreme Court cases. Regulating Judicial Elections provides the first accounting of the efficacy and consequences of such rules. C. Scott Peters re-frames debates over judicial elections by shifting away from all-or-nothing claims about threats to judicial independence and focusing instead on the trade-offs inherent in our checks and balances system. In doing so, he is able to examine the costs and benefits of state ethical restrictions. Peters finds that while some parts of state codes of conduct achieve their desired goals, others may backfire and increase the politicization of judicial elections. Moreover, modest gains in the protection of independence come at the expense of the effectiveness of elections as accountability mechanisms. These empirical findings will inform ongoing normative debates about judicial elections.

Winner of the Scribes Book Award "As brilliantly imaginative as it is urgently timely." -Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Harvard Law School "At no time more than the present, a defense of expertise-based governance and administration is sorely needed, and this book provides it with gusto." -Frederick Schauer, author of The Proof A highly original framework for restoring confidence in a government bureaucracy increasingly derided as "the deep state." Is the modern administrative state illegitimate? Unconstitutional? Unaccountable? Dangerous? America has long been divided over these questions, but the debate has recently taken on more urgency and spilled into the streets. Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that the administrative state can be redeemed so long as public officials are constrained by morality and guided by stable rules. Officials should make clear rules, ensure transparency, and never abuse retroactivity, so that current guidelines are not under constant threat of change. They should make rules that are understandable and avoid issuing contradictory ones. These principles may seem simple, but they have a great deal of power. Already, they limit the activities of administrative agencies every day. In more robust form, they could address some of the concerns of critics who decry the "deep state" and yearn for its downfall. "Has something to offer both critics and supporters...a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of the modern state." -Review of Politics "The authors freely admit that the administrative state is not perfect. But, they contend, it is far better than its critics allow." -Wall Street Journal

In recent years, the Danish cartoons affair, the Charlie Hebdo murders and the terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris have resulted in increasingly strident anti-Islamic speeches by politicians. This raises questions about the limits to freedom of expression and whether this freedom can and should be restricted to protect the religious feelings of believers. This book uses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights to provide a comprehensive analysis of the questions: whether legal prohibitions of religious hate speech violate the right to freedom of expression; and, whether such laws should be used to prosecute politicians and others who contribute to current debates when they use anti-Islam rhetoric. A well-known politician who uses such rhetoric is Dutch politician Geert Wilders. He has been prosecuted twice for hate speech, and was acquitted in the first case and recently convicted in the second. These prosecutions are used to illustrate the issues involved in drawing the line between freedom of expression and religious hate speech. The author argues that freedom of expression of politicians and those contributing to the public debate should not be restricted except in two very limited circumstances: when they incite to hatred or violence and there is an imminent danger that violence will follow or where it stops people from holding or manifesting their religion. Based on this, the author concludes that the European Court of Human Rights should decide, if it is asked to do so, that Wilders conviction for hate speech violates his freedom of expression.

This book shows the rise and morphology of a self-identified `illiberal democracy', the first 21st century illiberal political regime arising in the European Union. Since 2010, Viktor Orban's governments in Hungary have convincingly offered an anti-modernist and anti-cosmopolitan/anti-European Unionist rhetoric, discourse and constitutional identity to challenge neo-liberal democracy. The Hungarian case provides unique observation points for students of transitology, especially those who are interested in states which are to abandon pathways of liberal democracy. The author demonstrates how illiberalism is present both in `how' and `what' is being done: the style, format and procedure of legislation; as well as the substance: the dismantling of institutional rule of law guarantees and the weakening of checks and balances. The book also discusses the ideological commitments and constitutionally framed and cemented value preferences, and a reconstituted and re-conceptualized relationship between the state and its citizens, which is not evidently supported by Hungarians' value system and life-style choices.

E-voting is the use of electronic means in the casting of the vote at political elections or referendums. This book provides an overview of e-voting related case-law worldwide and explains how judicial decisions impact e-voting development. With contributions by renowned experts on thirteen countries, the authors discuss e-voting both from controlled environments, such as voting machines in polling stations, and uncontrolled ones, including internet voting. Each chapter examines a group of country-specific leading judicial decisions on e-voting and their likely impact on its future development. Reference is made to emerging standards on e-voting such as the Recommendation Rec(2004)11 of the Council of Europe, the only international instrument on e-voting regulation, and to other countries' case-law. The work provides a broader, informative and easily accessible perspective on the historical, political and legal aspects of an otherwise very technical subject, and contributes to a better understanding of the significance of case law and its impact in shaping e-voting's future development. The book will be significantly useful to anyone with an interest in e-voting, in particular decision makers and officials, researchers and academia, as well as NGOs and providers of e-voting solutions.

The prominent constitutional law scholar's fascinating (and yes, mind-boggling) argument that we don't need the Constitution after all For some, to oppose the Constitution is to oppose the American experiment itself. But leading constitutional scholar Louis Michael Seidman argues that our founding document has long passed its "sell-by" date. It might sound crazy, but Seidman's arguments are both powerful and, well, convincing. As Seidman shows, constitutional skepticism and disobedience have been present from the beginning of American history, even worming their way into the Federalist Papers. And, as Seidman also points out, no one alive today has agreed to be bound by these rules. In From Parchment to Dust, Seidman offers a brief history of the phenomenon of constitutional skepticism and then proceeds to a masterful takedown of our most cherished, constitutionally enshrined institutions and beliefs, from the Supreme Court ("an arrogant elite in robes"), to the very concepts of civil rights, due process, and equal protection-all of which he argues are just pretenses for preserving a fundamentally rigged and inequitable status quo. Rather than rely on the specific wording of a flawed and outdated document, rife with "Madison's mistakes," Seidman proposes instead a version that better reflects our shared values, and leaves it to people currently alive to determine how these values will play out in contemporary society. From Parchment to Dust is a short, sharp, and iconoclastic book questioning the value (and ultimately the hypocrisy) of embracing the Constitution-which, after all, was written more than 230 years ago-as our moral and political lodestar.

This revised and updated casebook comprehensively compares the U.S. legal approach to problems of inequality and discrimination with the approaches of a variety of other legal systems around the world, including those in Europe, South Africa, China, Colombia, India and Brazil. This book provides an introduction to theories of equality and sources of equality law, and examines inequality and discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and identity, religion and disability. Key features: Extensive chapter notes add critical context to areas of developing law Analysis of a range of sources: each chapter includes case law, treaty law, statutory law, regulatory law and legal scholarship A comparative problem-based approach, using concrete issues of inequality and discrimination to help students focus on real world concerns Examination of key contested topics such as marriage inequality, the rights of persons with disabilities, affirmative action, reproductive rights, employment discrimination and hate speech A supplementary online course with additional content and guidance for both students and instructors is available through Stanford Law School. Written in a thorough yet accessible style and with contributions from leading international legal scholars, this casebook is ideal for lecture courses, seminars and summer programs in equality and anti-discrimination in law schools, as well as undergraduate courses in law, political science and sociology. Contributors include: D. Allen, P.L. Cherian, D. Collier, J. Damamme, T. Degener, R. Ford, S. Foster, S. Han, K. Loper, S. Misra, D.B. Oppenheimer, M.-C. Pauwels, S. Robin-Olivier, B. Wang, W. Zhou

This book tackles a complex area of law, social policy and social work, providing a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical, practical and legal boundaries of State power following safeguarding and child protection referrals in England. The book examines the history, rationale and implications of the current position, concluding that the balance of power is weighted in favour of the State. The Limits of State Power & Private Rights is ground-breaking in its approach to the subject and its detailed, critical analysis. Traditionally the subject matter of the book is considered within a welfare framework. The analysis in this book argues that a policing agenda is embedded within policy but without appropriate safeguards and controls, creating potentially irreconcilable tension described by the author as the 'welfare/policing dichotomy'. This book is of importance to academics, lawyers, social workers, policy makers, practitioners and service users. The book is written so as to be accessible to a multi-disciplinary audience, but is sufficiently detailed so as to be suitable for specialists and non-specialists alike in this subject area. The chapters include introductory and contextual sections as well as doctrinal, theoretical and socio-legal analysis. Although the focus is on the English system, the book is equally applicable to the many worldwide jurisdictions adopting the Anglo/American 'child rights' based framework of child protection. It is also of use as a comparative work in countries where a family support based system is practiced.

A powerful analysis of why lies and falsehoods spread so rapidly now, and how we can reform our laws and policies regarding speech to alleviate the problem. Lying has been with us from time immemorial. Yet today is different-and in many respects worse. All over the world, people are circulating damaging lies, and these falsehoods are amplified as never before through powerful social media platforms that reach billions. Liars are saying that COVID-19 is a hoax. They are claiming that vaccines cause autism. They are lying about public officials and about people who aspire to high office. They are lying about their friends and neighbors. They are trying to sell products on the basis of untruths. Unfriendly governments, including Russia, are circulating lies in order to destabilize other nations, including the United Kingdom and the United States. In the face of those problems, the renowned legal scholar Cass Sunstein probes the fundamental question of how we can deter lies while also protecting freedom of speech. To be sure, we cannot eliminate lying, nor should we try to do so. Sunstein shows why free societies must generally allow falsehoods and lies, which cannot and should not be excised from democratic debate. A main reason is that we cannot trust governments to make unbiased judgments about what counts as "fake news." However, governments should have the power to regulate specific kinds of falsehoods: those that genuinely endanger health, safety, and the capacity of the public to govern itself. Sunstein also suggests that private institutions, such as Facebook and Twitter, have a great deal of room to stop the spread of falsehoods, and they should be exercising their authority far more than they are now doing. As Sunstein contends, we are allowing far too many lies, including those that both threaten public health and undermine the foundations of democracy itself.

Interest in NFIB v. Sebelius has been extraordinarily high, from as soon as the legislation was passed, through lower court rulings, the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, and the decision itself, both for its substantive holdings and the purported behind-the-scene dynamics. Legal blogs exploded with analysis, bioethicists opined on our collective responsibilities, and philosophers tackled concepts like 'coercion' and the activity/inactivity distinction. This volume aims to bring together scholars from disparate fields to analyze various features of the decision. It comprises over twenty essays from a range of academic disciplines, namely law, philosophy, and political science. Essays are divided into five units: context and history, analyzing the opinions, individual liberty, Medicaid, and future implications.

The Emergency Detention Act, Title II of the Internal Security Act of 1950, is the only law in American history to legalize preventive detention. It restricted the freedom of a certain individual or a group of individuals based on actions that may be taken that would threaten the security of a nation or of a particular area. Yet the Act was never enforced before it was repealed in 1971. Masumi Izumi links the Emergency Detention Act with Japanese American wartime incarceration in her cogent study, The Rise and Fall of America's Concentration Camp Law. She dissects the entangled discourses of race, national security, and civil liberties between 1941 and 1971 by examining how this historical precedent generated "the concentration camp law" and expanded a ubiquitous regime of surveillance in McCarthyist America. Izumi also shows how political radicalism grew as a result of these laws. Japanese Americas were instrumental in forming grassroots social movements that worked to repeal Title II. The Rise and Fall of America's Concentration Camp Law is a timely study in this age of insecurity where issues of immigration, race, and exclusion persist.

Not so long ago, being aggressively "pro-free speech" was as closely associated with American political liberalism as being pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, or pro-gun control. With little notice, this political dynamic has been shaken to the core. The Right's First Amendment examines how conservatives came to adopt and co-opt constitutional free speech rights. In the 1960s, free speech on college campuses was seen as a guarantee for social agitators, hippies, and peaceniks. Today, for many conservatives, it represents instead a crucial shield that protects traditionalists from a perceived scourge of political correctness and liberal oversensitivity. Over a similar period, free market conservatives have risen up to embrace a once unknown, but now cherished, liberty: freedom of commercial expression. What do these changes mean for the future of First Amendment interpretation? Wayne Batchis offers a fresh entry point into these issues by grounding his study in both political and legal scholarship. Surveying six decades of writings from the preeminent conservative publication National Review alongside the evolving constitutional law and ideological predispositions of Supreme Court justices deciding these issues, Batchis asks the conservative political movement to answer to its judicial logic, revealing how this keystone of our civic American beliefs now carries a much more complex and nuanced political identity.

Europeanization of Judicial Review argues that the higher complexity of the political framework in which laws are made today leads to less well-designed laws and loop-holes, allowing politicians to leave decisions to the courts. The higher complexity of the political framework is a result of the need in the EU to consider both national and European legal and political rules when phrasing new laws. Both to decrease the complexity in the design of legislation and to preserve the ideal of the rule of law, the courts now are more likely to rule laws unconstitutional. The book employs a wide range of quantitative and qualitative methods to collect new data about the German, Austrian, and Italian constitutional courts over the last four decades. These three courts have a comparable history, theoretical background, and structure while differing in two key components: length of EU membership and legitimacy perception. Corkin employs multi-method research based on over fifty interviews with judges, politicians and civil servants; content analysis of abstract judicial review cases over three decades; and a database of over 300 variables relating to the courts and their surroundings. Her data reveals that in abstract judicial review, and in the wider political arena, political culture has become more confrontational due to attitude changes in politicians and judges. These attitude changes can be directly linked to the EU and have wide-ranging implications for legitimacy, democracy and political methodology. Presenting a bridge between the revitalized realist and legalist debate, Europeanization of Judicial Review will contribute to socio-legal theory, literature on comparative courts, and both new institutionalism and Europeanization theory.

Drawing on a postcolonial legal history of the United States' territorial expansionism, this book provides an analysis of the foundations of its global empire. Charles R. Venator-Santiago argues that the United States has developed three traditions of territorial expansionism with corresponding constitutional interpretations, namely colonialist, imperialist, and global expansionist. This book offers an alternative interpretation of the origins of US global expansion, suggesting it began with the tradition of territorial expansionism following the 1898 Spanish-American War to legitimate the annexation of Puerto Rico and other non-contiguous territories. The relating constitutional interpretation grew out of the 1901 Insular Cases in which the Supreme Court coined the notion of an unincorporated territory to describe the 1900 Foraker Act's normalization of the prevailing military territorial policies. Since then the United States has invoked the ensuing precedents to legitimate a wide array of global policies, including the 'war on terror'. Puerto Rico and the Origins of US Global Empire: The Disembodied Shade combines a unique study of Puerto Rican legal history with a new interpretation of contemporary US policy. As such, it provides a valuable resource for students and scholars of the legal and historical disciplines, especially those with a specific interest in American and postcolonial studies.

Not so long ago, being aggressively "pro-free speech" was as closely associated with American political liberalism as being pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, or pro-gun control. With little notice, this political dynamic has been shaken to the core. The Right's First Amendment examines how conservatives came to adopt and co-opt constitutional free speech rights. In the 1960s, free speech on college campuses was seen as a guarantee for social agitators, hippies, and peaceniks. Today, for many conservatives, it represents instead a crucial shield that protects traditionalists from a perceived scourge of political correctness and liberal oversensitivity. Over a similar period, free market conservatives have risen up to embrace a once unknown, but now cherished, liberty: freedom of commercial expression. What do these changes mean for the future of First Amendment interpretation? Wayne Batchis offers a fresh entry point into these issues by grounding his study in both political and legal scholarship. Surveying six decades of writings from the preeminent conservative publication National Review alongside the evolving constitutional law and ideological predispositions of Supreme Court justices deciding these issues, Batchis asks the conservative political movement to answer to its judicial logic, revealing how this keystone of our civic American beliefs now carries a much more complex and nuanced political identity.

At a time when public administrations are increasingly subjected to transparency requirements this book provides timely analysis on the role of transparency in the context of public procurement within the EU. It provides a blend of theoretical analysis and practical insights into the operation of freedom of information requirements associated with the expenditure of public funds through purchasing, contracting out and commissioning activities. The first part of the book critically assesses a number of key issues surrounding transparency in public procurement including: corruption prevention, competition, commercial issues and access to remedies. The second part of the book features contributions from leading experts across ten European jurisdictions, providing a comparative view of transparency requirements and freedom of information rules in the context of public procurement. Overall the book provides a conceptual framework to understand the relationship between business secrets, freedom of information rules and the regulation of public procurement across Europe. This book will be of interest to scholars and students researching across public, administrative and comparative law. Practising lawyers who are involved with cross-border procurement tenders will also find this book to be a useful resource as it provides a comprehensive overview of regulatory standards at a national and European level.

Almost two decades ago, the fall of the Santer Commission against a background of allegations of maladministration and nepotism had the effect of placing accountability on the political agenda of the EU institutions. More recently, the non-ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, the difficulties of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the current financial crisis have increased the calls for accountability in the EU. This book investigates whether any progress towards more accountability and transparency has been made in the post-Lisbon era by taking a holistic approach to the subject. Marios Costa argues that currently the EU institutions and the Member States are not in a position to hold the so-called independent agencies as well as the various committees and expert groups accountable. Despite recent progress, the EU still needs to put forward an acceptable constitutional framework which will truly secure accountability at the EU level of governance.