Suchergebnisse

The Hughes Court: From Progressivism to Pluralism, 1930 to 1941 describes the closing of one era in constitutional jurisprudence and the opening of another. This comprehensive study of the Supreme Court from 1930 to 1941 - when Charles Evans Hughes was Chief Justice - shows how nearly all justices, even the most conservative, accepted the broad premises of a Progressive theory of government and the Constitution. The Progressive view gradually increased its hold throughout the decade, but at its end, interest group pluralism began to influence the law. By 1941, constitutional and public law was discernibly different from what it had been in 1930, but there was no sharp or instantaneous Constitutional Revolution in 1937 despite claims to the contrary. This study supports its conclusions by examining the Court's work in constitutional law, administrative law, the law of justiciability, civil rights and civil liberties, and statutory interpretation.

Twenty-first-century constitutions now typically include a new 'fourth branch' of government, a group of institutions charged with protecting constitutional democracy, including electoral management bodies, anticorruption agencies, and ombuds offices. This book offers the first general theory of the fourth branch; in a world where governance is exercised through political parties, we cannot be confident that the traditional three branches are enough to preserve constitutional democracy. The fourth branch institutions can, by concentrating within themselves distinctive forms of expertise, deploy that expertise more effectively than the traditional branches are capable of doing. However, several case studies of anticorruption efforts, electoral management bodies, and audit bureaus show that the fourth branch institutions do not always succeed in protecting constitutional democracy, and indeed sometimes undermine it. The book concludes with some cautionary notes about placing too much hope in these - or, indeed, in any - institutions as the guarantors of constitutional democracy.

"This is the second edition of Professor Tushnet's short critical introduction to the history and current meaning of the United States' Constitution. It is organised around wo themes: first, the US Constitution is old, short, and difficult to amend. Second, the Constitution creates a structure of political opportunities that allows political actors, icluding political parties, to pursue the preferred policy goals even to the point of altering the very structure of politics. Deploying these themes to examine the structure f the national government, federalism, judicial review, and individual rights, the book provides basic information about, and deeper insights into, the way he US constitutional system has developed and what it means today."--

"[This] three-volume set provides a carefully considered selection of the most important articles to guide research into comparative constitutional law. Topics covered include historical studies of public law in different nations, theoretical accounts of rights and structures, detailed examinations of particular features common to many constitutions, and comparisons between a significant number of domestic jurisdictions. Together with an original introduction by the editor, this...research collection [contains 61 articles, dating from 1987 to 2015]."--

"Professor Tushnet's book is a healthy antidote to the prevailing mode of American constitutional scholarship."-Frederick Schauer, Georgetown Law Journal "[Professor Tushnet's] contributions to the debates about constitutional interpretation and insights into the dynamics of constitutional theory and doctrine are invaluable. In the final analysis, he forces us not only to remain intellectually honest but also to question the precepts by which we choose to run our government and live our lives."-Michael J. Gerhardt, Texas Law Review "Red, White, and Blue ranks with Laurence Tribe's Constitutional Choices in its ambition, erudition, and importance. Tushnet's rejection of the five unitary grand theories . . . deserves attention, and, I believe, acclaim."-Philip Bobbitt, Stanford Law Review.