Suchergebnisse

In A Global Political Morality, Michael J. Perry addresses several related questions in human rights theory, political theory and constitutional theory. He begins by explaining what the term 'human right' means and then elaborates and defends the morality of human rights, which is the first truly global morality in human history. Perry also pursues the implications of the morality of human rights for democratic governance and for the proper role of courts - especially the US Supreme Court - in protecting constitutionally entrenched human rights. The principal constitutional controversies discussed in the book are capital punishment, race-based affirmative action, same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide and abortion

In the period since the end of the Second World War, there has emerged what never before existed: a truly global morality. Some of that morality - the morality of human rights - has become entrenched in the constitutional law of the United States. This book explicates the morality of human rights and elaborates three internationally recognized human rights that are embedded in US constitutional law: the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment; the right to moral equality; and the right to religious and moral freedom. The implications of one or more of these rights for three great constitutional controversies - capital punishment, same-sex marriage and abortion - are discussed in-depth. Along the way, Michael J. Perry addresses the question of the proper role of the Supreme Court of the United States in adjudicating these controversies

Contents -- 1. Introduction: ""The Judicial Usurpation of Politics"" -- 2. What Is ""the Constitution""? (And Other Fundamental Questions) -- 3. The Fourteenth Amendment: What Norms Did ""We the People"" Establish? -- 4. The Fourteenth Amendment and Race: Segregation and Affirmative Action -- 5. Beyond Race: Sex and Sexual Orientation -- 6. Further Beyond: Abortion and Physician-Assisted Suicide -- 7. Concluding Reflections -- Notes -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y

Most Americans are religious believers. Among these there is disagreement about many fundamental religious/moral matters. Because the United States is both such a religious country and such a religiously pluralistic country, the issue of the proper role of religion in politics is extremely important to political debate. In Religion in Politics, Michael Perry addresses a fundamental question: what role may religious arguments play, if any, either in public debate about what political choices to make or as a basis of political choice? He is principally concerned with political choices that ban o

In this book, Michael Perry addresses several fundamental questions about the proper role of religion in the politics of a liberal democracy, which is a central, recurring issue in the politics of the United States. The controversy about religion in politics comprises both constitutional and moral questions. According to the constitutional law of the United States, government may not "establish" religion. Given this "nonestablishment" requirement, what role (if any) is it constitutionally permissible for religion to play in the politics of the United States? Does a legislator or other public official, or even an ordinary citizen, violate the nonestablishment requirement by presenting a religious argument in public debate about what political choice to make? Not every liberal democracy is constitutionally committed to an ideal of nonestablishment. Even in the absence of such a constitutional requirement, however, fundamental political-moral questions remain. Is it morally appropriate for citizens - in particular, legislators and other public officials - to present religious arguments about the morality of human conduct in public political debate? Is it morally appropriate for them to rely on such arguments in making a political choice? In addressing these and other questions, Perry criticizes recent work by Kent Greenawalt, John Rawls, and John Finnis. -- Provided by publisher

In the modern period of American constitutional law-the period since the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed racially segregated public schooling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)-there has been a persistent and vigorous debate in the United States about whether the Court has merely been enforcing the Constitution or whether, instead, in the guise of enforcing the Constitution, the Court has really been usurping the legislative prerogative of making political choices about controversial issues. In this book, Professor Perry carefully disentangles and then thoughtfully addresses the various fundamental issues at the heart of the controversy: What is the argument for "judicial review"? What approach to constitutional interpretation should inform the practice of judicial review? How large or small a role should the Court play in bringing the interpreted Constitution to bear in resolving constitutional conflicts? To what extent are the Court's most controversial modern decisions-for example, decisions about racial segregation, discrimination based on sex, abortion, and homosexuality-sound; to what extent are they problematic?; The Constitution in the Courts is a major contribution to one of the most fundamental controversies in modern American politics and law