|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
The author argues that we the people’s rights under the
Constitution as amended cannot be characterized as “specific
prohibitions” against government. Life, liberty, and property
rights, and the freedoms of religion, speech, and press, for
example, are neither self-defining nor precise. Accordingly, in our
representative democracy, the unelected, unaccountable,
life-tenured judges on the Supreme Court should defer to the laws
of Congress affecting these rights absent a clear constitutional
violation. But the modern conservative Court has become
increasingly willing to overturn the laws and policy choices of our
nation’s elected representatives based on the judges’ political
and ideological preferences. Congress has the constitutional power
to control the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but it has not chosen
to exercise this power in any meaningful way to preserve and
protect the American people’s right to be governed by
majoritarian rule
The discrepancy between the fourteenth amendment's true meaning as
originally understood, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of
its meaning over time, has been dramatic and unfortunate. The
amendment was intended to be a constitutional rule for the
promotion and protection of people's rights, administered by the
states as front-line regulators of life, liberty, and property, to
be overseen by Congress and supported by federal legislation as
necessary. In this book, William B. Glidden makes the case that
instead, the amendment has operated as a judge-dominated, negative
rights-against-government regime, supervised by the Supreme Court.
Whenever Congress has enacted legislation to protect life, liberty,
or property rights of people in the states, the laws were often
overturned, narrowly construed, or forced to rely on the power of
Congress to regulate interstate commerce, under the Supreme Court's
constraining interpretations. Glidden proposes that Congress must
recover for itself or be restored to its proper role as the
designated federal enforcement agency for the fourteenth amendment.
The discrepancy between the fourteenth amendment's true meaning as
originally understood, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of
its meaning over time, has been dramatic and unfortunate. The
amendment was intended to be a constitutional rule for the
promotion and protection of people's rights, administered by the
states as front-line regulators of life, liberty, and property, to
be overseen by Congress and supported by federal legislation as
necessary. In this book, William B. Glidden makes the case that
instead, the amendment has operated as a judge-dominated, negative
rights-against-government regime, supervised by the Supreme Court.
Whenever Congress has enacted legislation to protect life, liberty,
or property rights of people in the states, the laws were often
overturned, narrowly construed, or forced to rely on the power of
Congress to regulate interstate commerce, under the Supreme Court's
constraining interpretations. Glidden proposes that Congress must
recover for itself or be restored to its proper role as the
designated federal enforcement agency for the fourteenth amendment.
A comprehensive and focused review of all of the Supreme Court's
overturns of Congress on constitutional grounds from 1789 to the
present suited to college-level political science and
constitutional law courses as well as law school students. The
always-controversial practice of judicial review of Congress is not
prescribed in the Constitution, but is arguably a valid way to
protect the rights of individuals or guard against unfair rule by
the majority. This book offers a historical review and indictment
of the Supreme Court's overruling of Congress, ultimately taking a
position that this has been more detrimental than beneficial to the
democratic process in the United States, and that in the aggregate
rights of individuals and minorities would have been better served
if the relevant laws of Congress had been enforced rather than
struck down by the Court. Written by an author who is a historian
and a lawyer, the book covers all Supreme Court overrides of
Congress through 2014, including major historical turning points in
Supreme Court legislation and such recent and relevant topics as
the Affordable Care Act, limits on contributions to political
candidates and campaigns from wealthy individuals, and the Defense
of Marriage Act. The discussions of specific cases are made in
relevant context and focus on "big picture" themes and concepts
without skipping key details, making this a useful volume for law
and university level students while also being accessible to
general readers. Supplies a balanced and comprehensive examination
of Supreme Court overrides of Congress that recognizes both good
and bad decisions but portrays how Congress performs better than
the Court in terms of being faithful to the Constitution-and in
promoting and protecting the rights of individuals and minorities
Discusses cases in relevant context and focuses on "big picture"
themes and concepts, avoiding legal jargon and technicalities to
make the text accessible to general readers Provides a historical
and contemporaneous review of Supreme Court-Congress interactions
with explanations of future implications Offers a historical review
and indictment of the Supreme Court's overruling of Congress,
ultimately taking a position that this has been more detrimental
than of benefit to the democratic process in the United States
Enables readers to obtain a richer understanding of the
relationship that has pertained between Congress and the Court
throughout U.S. history
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|