Suchergebnisse

The Bank of the United Ctates : a case study -- The constitution in the early republic -- Are we a nation? : the Jacksonian era to the Civil War, 1835-1865 -- From reconstruction to the new deal : 1866-1934 -- The new deal and the civil rights era -- Federalism, separation of powers, and national security in the modern era -- Race and the equal protection clause -- Sex equality -- Liberty, equality, and fundamental rights : the constitution, the family, and the body -- The constitution in the modern welfare state

Featuring essays by scholars working in a variety of subjects, this book presents diverse perspectives on dilemmas posed by potential conflicts between loyalties to specific institutions or professional roles and more universalistic conceptions of moral duty. This book begins with a philosophical exploration of theories of loyalty, both Eastern and Western, and then moves on to examine several problematic situations in which loyalty is often a factor: partisan politics, the armed forces, and lawyer-client relationships. -- Adapted from publisher's description.

The Bank of the United States : a case study -- The constitution in the early republic -- Are we a nation? : the Jacksonian era to the Civil War, 1835-1865 -- From reconstruction to the new deal : 1866-1934 -- The new deal and the civil rights era -- Federalism, separation of powers, and national security in the modern era -- Race and the Equal Protection Clause -- Sex equality -- Liberty, equality, and fundamental rights : the constitution, the family, and the body -- The constitution in the modern welfare state.

This remarkably rich collection of articles focuses on moral questions about war. The essays, originally published in Philosophy & Public Affairs, cover a wide range of topics from several points of view by writers from the fields of political science, philosophy, and law. The discussion of war and moral responsibility falls into three general categories: problems of political and military choice, problems about the relation of an individual to the actions of his government, and more abstract ethical questions as well. The first category includes questions about the ethical and legal aspects of war crimes and the laws of war; about the source of moral restrictions on military methods or goals; and about differences in suitability of conduct which may depend on differences in the nature of the opponent. The second category includes questions about the conditions for responsibility of individual soldiers and civilian officials for war crimes, and about the proper attitude of a government toward potential conscripts who reject its military policies. The third category includes disputes between absolutist, deontological, and utilitarian ethical theories, and deals with questions about the existence of insoluble moral dilemmas

"The First Two Centuries": The first panel explored the provisions that the drafters made in the United States Constitution for federal judicial selection and traced the two-century history of the selection process following the constitution's adoption. The panel consisted of Charles Cooper, Esq. of Cooper & Kirk PLLC; Gary L. McDowell, Haynes Professor of Leadership Studies and Political Science at the University of Richmond's Jepson School of Leadership Studies; and Ms. Maeva Marcus, of the United States Supreme Court Historical Society. Rodney A. Smolla, the George E. Allen Chair in Law, served as program coordinator and moderator. "Modern Federal Judicial Selection": The second panel explored modern federal judicial selection, tracing the selection process over the last two decades and analyzing how it has grown increasingly contentious. The panel consisted of Theresa M. Beiner, of the William H. Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Sheldon Goldman, Department of Political Science University of Massachusetts; Judge Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; and William P. Marshall, the Kenan Professor of Law University of North Carolina School of Law. Carl W. Tobias, Williams Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, served as moderator. "The Prospects of Reform": The third panel explored numerous suggestions for remedying or ameliorating the difficulties that pervade modern federal judicial selection and the prospects for these measures' success. The panel consisted of Terry Eastland, Publisher of The Weekly Standard; Michael Gerhardt, Hanson Professor of Law at the Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary; and Sanford V. Levinson, The W. St. John Garwood Centennial Chair in Law and Professor of Government at the University of Texas School of Law. Gary L. McDowell, the Haynes Professor of Leadership Studies and Political Science at the University of Richmond's Jepson School of Leadership Studies, served as moderator.

We urge you to reconsider your proposal to amend the House Rules to require a three-fifths vote for enactment of laws that increase income taxes. This proposal violates the explicit intentions of the Framers. It is inconsistent with the Constitution's language and structure. It departs sharply from traditional congressional practice. It may generate constitutional litigation that will encourage Supreme Court intervention in an area best left to responsible congressional decision. Unless the proposal is withdrawn now, it will serve as an unfortunate precedent for the proliferation of supermajority rules on a host of different subjects in the future. Over time, we will see the continuing erosion of our central constitutional commitments to majority rule and deliberative democracy.

What does it mean to have a constitution? Scholars and students associated with Walter Murphy at Princeton University have long asked this question in their exploration of constitutional politics and judicial behavior. These scholars, concerned with the making, maintenance, and deliberate change of the Constitution, have made unique and significant contributions to our understanding of American constitutional law by going against the norm of court-centered and litigation-minded research. Beginning in the late 1970s, this new wave of academics explored questions ranging from the nature of creating the U.S. Constitution to the philosophy behind amending it. In this collection, Sotirios A. Barber and Robert P. George bring together fourteen essays by members of this Princeton group--some of the most distinguished scholars in the field. These works consider the meaning of having a constitution, the implications of particular choices in the design of constitutions, and the meaning of judicial supremacy in the interpretation of the Constitution. The overarching ambition of this collection is to awaken a constitutionalist consciousness in its readers--to view themselves as potential makers and changers of constitutions, as opposed to mere subjects of existing arrangements. In addition to the editors, the contributors are Walter F. Murphy, John E. Finn, Christopher L. Eisgruber, James E. Fleming, Jeffrey K. Tulis, Suzette Hemberger, Stephen Macedo, Sanford Levinson, H. N. Hirsch, Wayne D. Moore, Keith E. Whittington, and Mark E. Brandon

The law is full of stories, ranging from the competing narratives presented at trials to the Olympian historical narratives set forth in Supreme Court opinions. How those stories are told and listened to makes a crucial difference to those whose lives are reworked in legal storytelling. The public at large has increasingly been drawn to law as an area where vivid human stories are played out with distinctively high stakes. And scholars in several fields have recently come to recognize that law's stories need to be studied critically.This notable volume-inspired by a symposium held at Yale Law School-brings together an exceptional group of well-known figures in law and literary studies to take a probing look at how and why stories are told in the law and how they are constructed and made effective. Why is it that some stories-confessions, victim impact statements-can be excluded from decisionmakers' hearing? How do judges claim the authority by which they impose certain stories on reality?Law's Stories opens new perspectives on the law, as narrative exchange, performance, explanation. It provides a compelling encounter of law and literature, seen as two wary but necessary interlocutors.ContributorsJ. M. BalkinPeter BrooksHarlon L. DaltonAlan M. DershowitzDaniel A. FarberRobert A. FergusonPaul GewirtzJohn HollanderAnthony KronmanPierre N. LevalSanford LevinsonCatharine MacKinnonJanet MalcolmMartha MinowDavid N. RosenElaine ScarryLouis Michael SeidmanSuzanna SherryReva B. SiegelRobert Weisberg

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Preface -- Between the Foreign and the Domestic: The Doctrine of Territorial Incorporation, Invented and Reinvented -- I. HISTORY AND EXPANSION -- Some Common Ground -- Teutonic Constitutionalism: The Role of Ethno-Juridical Discourse in the Spanish-American War -- A Constitution Led by the Flag: The Insular Cases and the Metaphor of Incorporation -- Deconstructing Colonialism: The ''Unincorporated Territory'' as a Category of Domination -- II. EXPANSION AND CONSTITUTION -- Installing the Insular Cases into the Canon of Constitutional Law -- Fulfilling Manifest Destiny: Conquest, Race, and the Insular Cases -- U.S. Territorial Expansion: Extended Republicanism versus Hyperextended Expansionism -- Constitutionalism and Individual Rights in the Territories -- III. CONSTITUTION AND MEMBERSHIP -- Partial Membership and Liberal Political Theory -- Injustice According to Law: The Insular Cases and Other Oddities -- One Hundred Years of Solitude: Puerto Rico's American Century -- A Tale of Distorting Mirrors: One Hundred Years of Puerto Rico's Sovereignty Imbroglio -- IV. MEMBERSHIP AND RECOGNITION -- Law, Language, and Statehood: The Role of English in the Great State of Puerto Rico -- Puerto Rican National Identity and United States Pluralism -- Puerto Rican Separatism and United States Federalism -- The Bitter Roots of Puerto Rican Citizenship -- A Note on the Insular Cases -- Notes on Contributors -- Index