Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Introduction: The Question of Legitimacy -- PART ONE the rule of law? -- 1 An Unreasonable Reaction to a Reasonable Decision -- 2 Not as Bad as Plessy. Worse. -- 3 eroG .v hsuB: Through the Looking Glass -- 4 In Partial (but not Partisan) Praise of Principle -- 5 The Fallibility of Reason -- 6 Sustaining the Premise of Legality: Learning to Live with Bush v. Gore -- 7 Can the Rule of Law Survive Bush v. Gore? -- PART TWO political questions -- 8 A Political Question -- 9 Political Questions and the Hazards of Pragmatism -- 10 The Conservatism in Bush v. Gore -- 11 Does the Constitution Enact the Republican Party Platform? Beyond Bush v. Gore -- 12 Off Balance -- 13 Legitimacy and the 2000 Election -- Contributors -- Index.

Correspondant du journal Le Temps entre 1865 et 1870, Clemenceau était un observateur perspicace de la politique américaine au moment de la Reconstruction, et adoptait des positions différentes de celle de Tocqueville.

AbstractThe lecture explores basic constitutional choices confronting post‐Brexit Britain, emphasising dilemmas generated by Irish, Scottish, and Welsh demands for home rule. It argues that only a specially elected Constitutional Convention, independent of Parliament, has the capacity and legitimacy to hammer out a written constitution that tries to resolve these dilemmas in a serious way. Once the Convention acts, its proposal should be submitted for approval at a referendum, but only after special steps are taken to encourage an informed decision by the electorate. Given the misinformation campaigns provoked by the last referendum, it is time for Britain to try something new: create a new national holiday, Deliberation Day, at which voters would be invited to gather at neighbourhood community centres to discuss the Convention's initiative. A host of social science experiments establish that a day's deliberation greatly improves public understanding, enhancing the democratic authority of a Yes vote at the referendum.

There are three paths to constitutionalism in the modern world. Under the first, revolutionary outsiders use the constitution to commit their new regime to the principles proclaimed during their previous struggle. India, South Africa, Italy and France have followed this path. Under the second, establishment insiders use the constitution to make strategic concessions to disrupt revolutionary movements before they can gain power. Britain provides paradigmatic examples. Under the third, ordinary citizens remain passive while political and social elites construct a new constitution. Spain, Japan and Germany provide variations on this theme. Different paths generate different legitimation problems, but the EU confronts a special difficulty. Since its members emerge out of three divergent pathways, they disagree about the nature of the union's constitutional problem, not merely its solution. Thus the EU confronts a cultural, not merely an economic, crisis.

Many of our inherited civic institutions are dead or dying. We need an ambitious reform program to revive democratic life. This essay advances a four-pronged "citizenship agenda": (1) a campaign finance initiative granting each voter fifty "patriot dollars" to fund candidates and political parties of his or her choice; (2) a proposal for a new national holiday, Deliberation Day, held before each national election, enabling citizens to deliberate on the merits of rival candidates; (3) a system of federally financed electronic news-vouchers to permit professional journalism to survive the destruction of its traditional business model; and (4) a new form of citizenship inheritance, which provides $80,000 to all Americans as they start off life as adults. Working with collaborators, I have developed each of these initiatives at book length. This essay suggests how the "citizenship agenda" yields a whole that is larger than the sum of its parts.

Describes the electoral crisis to the presidency & the US Supreme Court that occurred during the 2000 presidential election due to the historical gap between the Constitution of 1787 & the "living" Constitution of the 21st century. In the name of the written Constitution, the Republican party in FL attempted a constitutional "coup" to seize the presidency by allowing legislatively appointed electors to vote for George W. Bush even if the popular vote had gone to Democratic candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court intervened by stopping the FL recount but should have taken action against the Bush coup on grounds of democratic principle & constitutional text. J. Moses