Descripciones mejoradas de Syndetics:

In the modern period of American constitutional law--the period since the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed racially segregated public schooling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)--there has been a persistent and vigorous debate in the United States about whether the Court has merely been enforcing the Constitution or whether, instead, in the guise of enforcing the Constitution, the Court has really been usurping the legislative prerogative of making political choices about controversial issues. In this book, Professor Perry carefully disentangles and then thoughtfully addresses the various fundamental issues at the heart of the controversy: What is the argument for "judicial review"? What approach to constitutional interpretation should inform the practice of judicial review? How large or small a role should the Court play in bringing the interpreted Constitution to bear in resolving constitutional conflicts? To what extent are the Court's most controversial modern decisions--for example, decisions about racial segregation, discrimination based on sex, abortion, and homosexuality--sound; to what extent are they problematic? The Constitution in the Courts is a major contribution to one of the most fundamental controversies in modern American politics and law.

Tabla de contenidos provista por Syndetics

• 1. Constitutional Adjudication: Law or Politics?(p. 3)
• 2. The Argument for Judicial Review(p. 15)
• 3. The Argument for the Originalist Approach to Judicial Review(p. 28)
• 4. Originalism Does Not Entail Minimalism, I: The Indeterminacy of History(p. 54)
• 5. Originalism Does Not Entail Minimalism, II: The Indeterminacy of Morality(p. 70)
• 6. Skepticism about Minimalism--and about Nonminimalism, Too(p. 83)
• 7. The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment(p. 116)
• 8. The Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Amendment, I: Equal Protection(p. 136)
• 9. The Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Amendment, II: Substantive Due Process(p. 161)
• 10. Constitutional Adjudication: Law and Politics(p. 192)
• Notes(p. 205)
• Index(p. 269)

Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

CHOICE Review

Well-known legal scholar Perry (Love and Power: The Role of Religion and Morality in American Politics, 1991; Morality, Politics, and Law, CH, May'89; and The Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights: An Inquiry Into the Legitimacy of Constitutional Policymaking by the Judiciary, CH, Mar'83), provides one of the most thoughtful discussions to date of the Supreme Court's role in constitutional adjudication. Perry is critical of those who claim that constitutional adjudication should be law, not politics, or should involve interpretation, not legislation. Instead, he argues that the challenge is to understand that constitutional adjudication is both a legal and a political process. Unlike many advocates of the originalist approach to constitutional interpretation who argue that such an approach defines a small or passive role for the courts, Perry believes that the originalist approach is not necessarily inconsistent with a large or active judicial role. Upper-division undergraduate through faculty. R. Stidham; Appalachian State University

Notas de autor provistas por Syndetics

Michael J. Perry holds the Howard J. Trienens Chair in Law at Northwestern University Law School and is the author of several books