Descripciones mejoradas de Syndetics:

Quoting a statement attributed to Woodrow Wilson, "The history of liberty is the history of limitations upon the powers of government," Strong identifies and discusses the two methods for limiting governmental power which have evolved in the Western world. The first method is indirect limitations (in which the defining feature is one of checks and balances), and the second is direct limitations (which has its origins in the conviction that there exists a higher law forbidding abuse of mortal power). Strong then suggests major revisions in the judicial branch.

Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

CHOICE Review

Strong (law emeritus, Univ. of North Carolina) has written a bitter polemic that finds nothing right about constitutional interpretation by the US Supreme Court since at least 1937. Although he makes some interesting points in discussing direct and indirect limitations on government, much of his argument is drowned in ad hominem attacks on the Court, its justices, and its opinions. Although all constitutional scholars will disagree with some opinions of the Court, few resort to such name-calling and imputation of impure motives. Referring to the Court as "cocky" and its opinions as "nonsense" or as examples of "political sagacity" serve no purpose other than to undermine the author's logic. Strong finds the Court's decisions wrong on judicial review, freedom of speech, equal protection, due process, apportionment, abortion, and an endless number of other issues. He proposes two Supreme Courts, one for judicial review and one for constitutional review, the latter made up of justices serving fixed terms who render only advisory opinions. That this court would be located near Colorado Springs, a hotbed of the conservatism he espouses, is surely no coincidence. Although few constitutional scholars will agree with Strong, his book is worth glancing at. M. W. Bowers; University of Nevada, Las Vegas