Suchergebnisse

Legal scholar Peter M. Shane confronts U.S. presidential entitlement and offers a more reasonable way of conceptualizing our constitutional presidency in the twenty-first century. In the eyes of modern-day presidentialists, the United States Constitution's vesting of "executive power" means today what it meant in 1787. For them, what it meant in 1787 was the creation of a largely unilateral presidency, and in their view, a unilateral presidency still best serves our national interest. Democracy's Chief Executive challenges each of these premises, while showing how their influence on constitutional interpretation for more than forty years has set the stage for a presidency ripe for authoritarianism. Democracy's Chief Executive explains how dogmatic ideas about expansive executive authority can create within the government a psychology of presidential entitlement that threatens American democracy and the rule of law. Tracing today's aggressive presidentialism to a steady consolidation of White House power aided primarily by right-wing lawyers and judges since 1981, Peter M. Shane argues that this is a dangerously authoritarian form of constitutional interpretation that is not even well supported by an originalist perspective. Offering instead a fresh approach to balancing presidential powers, Shane develops an interpretative model of adaptive constitutionalism, rooted in the values of deliberative democracy. Democracy's Chief Executive demonstrates that justifying outcomes explicitly based on core democratic values is more, not less, constraining for judicial decision making—and presents a model that Americans across the political spectrum should embrace

The George W. Bush administration's ambitious-even breathtaking-claims of unilateral executive authority raised deep concerns among constitutional scholars, civil libertarians, and ordinary citizens alike. But Bush's attempts to assert his power are only the culmination of a near-thirty-year assault on the basic checks and balances of the U.S. government-a battle waged by presidents of both parties, and one that, as Peter M. Shane warns in Madison's Nightmare, threatens to utterly subvert the founders' vision of representative government. Tracing this tendency back to the first Reagan administr.

Annotation

New books by Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin and by Ethan J. Leib conclusively demonstrate that ambitious versions of deliberative democracy are susceptible to practical implementation in the United States. This review argues that the suggested reforms would be most potent if deployed as a simultaneous project of revitalizing both the electoral and deliberative aspects of American democratic legitimacy, and that campaigns to do so on a local level are more likely both to attract political support and achieve effectiveness than a campaign aimed at the national government.