Suchergebnisse

It's necessary to begin with considering the sort of judicially enforced federalism rejected in Garcia and to consider why the Court rejected it. According to this view of federalism, the Constitution leaves certain substantive affairs exclusively to the states, and what matters is making sure that states can regulate these without federal interference. So long as this domain is protected, the political significance of states is assured and federalism is secure. The federal government can, if it chooses, take charge of all those matters as to which state and federal authority is concurrent-though Congress will find this harder to accomplish when faced with the states' enhanced ability to muster political support. In any event, the key to a viable federalism is said to be the guarantee of judicially-enforced substantive limits on national authority. We begin with this approach to federalism because, while courts may not resolve every conflict between state and national authorities, they can simplify such problems by delimiting the sphere in which power is allocated through politics. And, indeed, many commentators believe the Supreme Court was wrong to abandon the task of defining a protected sphere of exclusive state jurisdiction.16 After the surrender of 1937 and after Garcia, they say, federalism is "dead," Congress is free to run berserk, and it's only a matter of time until the states lose what little political clout they have left and are rendered superfluities by a relentless federal juggernaut. We can say one thing for sure: The problem with judicially enforced federalism is not, as Justice Blackmun suggests in Garcia, that the Framers didn't want courts enforcing limits on national authority. Making statements about the Framers' intent is, of course, always hazardous. Because the relevant decision makers were the people who ratified the Constitution,17 deciding what the Constitution was intended to mean is as quixotic as interpreting election returns-- too many people chose among too few options for too ...

The most important lesson that can be learned from Dred Scott is that the Supreme Court should exercise caution when addressing political controversy. Therefore, the Court's handling of Bush v. Gore was rather peculiar. This article looks at the legal system's approach to the 2000 US presidential election. It looks first at the protest action of the FL Supreme Court & the US Supreme Court. It then examines the contest action of both court systems. Finally, the article examines reaction to the Supreme Court's decision, especially the Court's partisan leanings. The article concludes that the Supreme Court's actions in the 2000 election prove that the highest court in the land operates under the assumption that the people are too "stupid or too irrational" to govern. In making this assumption, the justices of the Supreme Court demonstrated both their arrogance & their willingness to alter the law. K. A. Larsen

In the wake of Watergate, Gerald Ford appointed eminent lawyer and scholar Edward H. Levi to the post of attorney general-and thus gave him the onerous task of restoring legitimacy to a discredited Department of Justice. Levi was famously fair-minded and free of political baggage, and his inspired addresses during this tumultuous time were critical to rebuilding national trust. They reassured a tense and troubled nation that the Department of Justice would act in accordance with the principles underlying its name, operating as a nonpartisan organization under the strict rule of law. For Restoring Justice, Jack Fuller has carefully chosen from among Levi's speeches a selection that sets out the attorney general's view of the considerable challenges he faced: restoring public confidence through discussion and acts of justice, combating the corrosive skepticism of the time, and ensuring that the executive branch would behave judicially. Also included are addresses and Congressional testimonies that speak to issues that were hotly debated at the time, including electronic surveillance, executive privilege, separation of powers, antitrust enforcement, and the guidelines governing the FBI-many of which remain relevant today. Serving at an almost unprecedentedly difficult time, Levi was among the most admired attorney generals of the modern era. Published here for the first time, the speeches in Restoring Justice offer a superb sense of the man and his work.

Risse, T.: Democratic global governance in the 21st century. - S. 91-110. Meny, Y.: Five (hypo)theses on democracy and its future. - S. 111-126. Alston, P.: The "not-a-cat" syndrome. Re-thinking human rights law to meet the needs of the twenty-first century. - S. 127-144. Ferrera, M. ; Rhodes, M.: Building a sustainable welfare state. - S. 145-167. Fox, E. M.: Global markets, national law, and the regulation of business. - S. 171-181. Kramer, L.: Political organization and the future of democracy. - S. 183-192. Stewart, R. B.: Global governance for sustainable development. - S. 193-206. Dworkin, R.: Does equality matter? - S. 207-212