THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY IS A FACT, BUT ITS IMPACT ON THE COMPLICATED ISSUES OF DETENTE AND EUROPEAN SECURITY IS UNCERTAIN. WILL THE COMMUNITY ARTICULATE POSITIONS THAT REFLECT GLOBAL CONCERNS AND MULTILATERAL STANCES? BECAUSE THE WEST EUROPEANS DO NOT SHARE THE BURDENS OF THE SUPERPOWERS THEY CAN AFFORD A POLICY OF MANOEURE, BUT ONLY IF THEY STRENGTHEN EUROPE'S SECURITY.
The question of how courts respond to national emergencies or crises is of profound importance in a democratic society. In the United States, the federal courts exercise the power of judicial review, giving them the authority to invalidate acts of legislatures or executives as unconstitutional. Given this, those groups who wish to ensure that government does not infringe on valued liberties during times of crisis often look to the federal courts to serve as a limitation on legislative and executive overreach. This policy brief suggests that framing the question as an oppositional one; that is, as a question of the courts in opposition to other branches of government, misrepresents fundamental and distinctive aspects of the US federal courts. Rather, the judiciary operates in conjunction with other branches of government, often by invitation or by default when governing majorities either cannot or will not resolve disputes that divide them. In this sense, the impact of court decisions is measured less by direct social policy outcomes or compliance by other actors, than by the ways in which they contribute to or challenge dominant governing coalitions.
Two general models for auditory compensation attending visual loss, structural and strategic, are discussed in the light of available research. It is suggested that previous dismissals of structural forms of auditory compensation may be in error, at least for those who are more profoundly and congenitally impaired.
