Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Contributors -- Introduction -- 1. The Tension between Law and Politics in the Modern Republican Tradition -- 2. Impotence, Perspicuity and the Rule of Law: James Madison's Critique of Republican Legislation -- 3. Kant, Madison and the Problem of Transnational Order: Popular Sovereignty in Multilevel Systems -- 4. Republicanism and Democracy -- 5. Two Views of the City: Republicanism and Law -- 6. A Kantian Republican Conception of Justice as Nondomination -- 7. Two Republican Traditions -- 8. Freedom, Control and the State -- 9. Legal Modes and Democratic Citizens in Republican Theory -- 10. Rights, Republicanism and Democracy -- 11. Republicanism and Global Justice: A Sketch -- 12. Republicanism and Transnational Democracy -- Index

As the principles and practices of democracy continue to spread ever more widely, it is hard to imagine a corner of the globe into which they will not eventually penetrate. But the euphoria of democratic revolutions is typically short-lived, and usually followed by disgruntlement and even cynicism about the actual operation of democratic institutions. It is widely accepted that democracy is a good thing. However democrats have much work to do in improving the performance of democratic institutions. The essays in this volume focus on this difficult and vital challenge: how can we improve the design of democratic institutions? How can public deliberation in democracies be enhanced? How can elections be reformed so as to dampen the excessive influence of special interests, especially those with money? How can democratic institutions be reformed so they can deal with issues that transcend the boundaries of the nation-state? And finally, how can democratic practices better take account of the internal plurality of societies that are ethnically or otherwise divided? Contributors: Brooke Ackerly, Ian Ayres, Geoffrey Brennan, John Ferejohn, Alan Hamlin, Russell Hardin, Donald Horowitz, Stephen Macedo, Philip Petit, Philippe C. Schmitter, Ian Shapiro, Philippe Van Parjis, Iris Marion Young

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Prolegomena for a Sampler: Extrajudicial Interpretation of the Constitution, 1789–1861 -- Congressional Attitudes toward Constitutional Interpretation -- Constitutional Analysis by Congressional Staff Agencies -- Hearing about the Constitution in Congressional Committees -- The Federal Appointments Process as Constitutional Interpretation -- Lawyers in Congress -- Congressional Responses to Judicial Review -- Court, Congress, and Civil Rights -- Quasi-Constitutional Law: The Rise of Super-Statutes -- Congressional Fact Finding and the Scope of Judicial Review -- Institutional Design of a Thayerian Congress -- Evaluating Congressional Constitutional Interpretation: Some Criteria and Two Informal Case Studies -- Can Congress Be Trusted with the Constitution? The Effects of Incentives and Procedures -- About the Contributors -- Index

Toleration on Trial offers the only multidisciplinary study available on the issue of toleration, in the context of deep and difficult conflicts over ideological, cultural, and identity issues in today's mobilized political environment. The importance of individual attitudes and institutional/cultural arrangements is explored as a central axis in the meaning of toleration as a principle and practically in relation to demands for toleration of religious expression, gay rights, and the Islamic sources of toleration

Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, a book written by Donald Green and Ian Shapiro and published in 1994, excited much controversy among political scientists and promoted a dialogue among them that was printed in a double issue of the journal Critical Review in 1995. This new book reproduces thirteen essays from the journal written by senior scholars in the field, along with an introduction by the editor of the journal, Jeffrey Friedman, and a rejoinder to the essays by Green and Shapiro. The scholars-who include John Ferejohn, Morris P. Fiorina, Stanley Kelley, Jr., Robert E. Lane, Peter C. Ordeshook, Norman Schofield, and Kenneth A. Shepsle-criticize, agree with, or build on the issues raised by Green and Shapiros critique. Together the essays provide an interesting and accessible way of focusing on competing approaches to the study of politics and the social sciences