Search

The author argues that we the people's rights under the Constitution as amended cannot be characterized as “specific prohibitions” against government. Life, liberty, and property rights, and the freedoms of religion, speech, and press, for example, are neither self-defining nor precise. Accordingly, in our representative democracy, the unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges on the Supreme Court should defer to the laws of Congress affecting these rights absent a clear constitutional violation. But the modern conservative Court has become increasingly willing to overturn the laws and policy choices of our nation's elected representatives based on the judges'political and ideological preferences. Congress has the constitutional power to control the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but it has not chosen to exercise this power in any meaningful way to preserve and protect the American people's right to be governed by majoritarian rule

The Dark Side of Reform: Exploring the Impact of Public Policy on Racial Equity contains nine chapters on the development of social policies with the potential to advance racial equity. In addition to studying these policies and their implications, the chapters in this volume demonstrate how lessons from the past can be used to inform the direction of current discussions. At the heart of these conversations are concerns about whether Black people, in particular, will receive the full benefit of transformative laws that may emerge in the coming years. The volume also offers recommendations on implementing policies that address the unique concerns of structurally disadvantaged communities with particular emphasis on Black and Latinx people.

What are individual rights? What is freedom? How are they related to each other? Why are they so crucial to human life? How do you protect them? These are some of the questions that A Declaration and Constitution for a Free Society answers. The book uses Objectivist philosophy—the philosophy of Ayn Rand—to analyze subjective, intrinsic, and objective theories of rights and show why rights and freedom are objective necessities of human life. This knowledge is then used to make changes to the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. Through these changes, the book shows the fundamental legal requirements of a free society and why we should create such a society. It demonstrates why a free society is morally, politically, and economically beneficial to human beings.

America is a nation that celebrates diversity and freedom of conscience. Yet, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed, democratic times often demand conformity. Nowadays, conformity might be enforced in the name of diversity itself, and go so far as to infringe on the rights of conscience, expression, association, and religious freedom. Americans have recently been confronted by this paradox in various ways, from federal health care mandates, to campus speech codes, to consumer boycotts, to public intimidation, to vexatious litigation, to private corporations dismissing employees for expressing certain political views. In this book, Bradley C. S. Watson brings together leading thinkers from a variety of disciplines to examine the manner and extent to which conformity is demanded by contemporary American law and social practice. Contributors also consider the long-term results of such demands for conformity for the health—and even survival—of a constitutional republic.

This bookexamines liberty's Constitutional meaning through the jurisprudence of Justice Stephen Field, one of the late-Nineteenth Century's most influential Supreme Court Justices. A Lincoln appointee who served on the Court from 1863-1897, Field articulated a view of Constitutional liberty that speaks to contemporary disputes. Today, some see liberty as protection through government regulation against private oppression. Others see liberty as protection from government through limits on governmental power. Justice Field is often viewed as siding against government power to regulate, acting as a pre-cursor to the infamous “Lochner”Era of the Court. This work explains how Field instead saw both these competing conceptions of liberty as legitimate. In fact, the two cooperated toward a common end. In his opinions, Field argued that protections through and from government worked in tandem to guard fundamental individual rights. In describing this view of liberty, Field addressed key Constitutional provisions that remain a source of debate, including some of the earliest interpretations of the Due Process Clause, its relationship to state police power and civil rights, and some of the earliest assertions of a national police power through the Commerce Clause. This work furthermore addresses the underpinnings of Field's views, namely that he grounded his reading of the Constitution in the context of the common law and the Declaration of Independence. In his principles as well as his approach, this book argues, Justice Field presents a helpful discussant in ongoing debates regarding the meaning of liberty and of the Constitution.

The core idea underlying human rights is that everyone is inherently and equally worthy of respect as a person. The emergence of that idea has been one of the most significant international developments since the Second World War. But it is one thing to embrace something as an aspirational ideal and quite another to recognize it as enforceable law. The continued development of the international human rights regime brings a pressing question to the fore: What role should international human rights have as law within the American legal system?The U.S. Supreme Court and the Domestic Force of International Human Rights Law examines this question through the prism of the U.S. Supreme Court's handling of controversies bearing most closely on it. It shows that the specific disputes the Court has addressed can be best understood by recognizing how each interconnects with an overarching debate over the proper role to be accorded international human rights law within American institutions. By approaching the subject from the justices'standpoint, this book reveals a divide in the Court between two fundamentally different orientations toward the domestic impact of the international human rights regime.

This book examines the judicial opinions and criminal justice policy impact of Justice John Paul Stevens, the U.S. Supreme Court's most prolific opinion author during his 35-year career on the nation's highest court. Although Justice Stevens, a Republican appointee of President Gerald Ford, had a professional reputation as a corporate antitrust law attorney, he immediately asserted himself as the Court's foremost advocate of prisoners'rights and Miranda rights when he arrived at the Court in 1975. In examining Justice Stevens's opinions on these topics as well as others, including capital punishment and right to counsel, the chapters of the book connect his prior experiences with the development of his views on rights in criminal justice. In particular, the book examines his relevant experiences as a law clerk to Justice Wiley Rutledge in the Supreme Court's 1947 term, a volunteer attorney handling criminal cases in Illinois, and a judge on the U.S. court of appeals to explore how these experiences shaped his understanding of the importance of rights in criminal justice. For many issues, such as those affecting imprisoned offenders, Justice Stevens was a strong defender of rights throughout his career. For other issues, such as capital punishment, there is evidence that he became increasingly protective of rights over the course of his Supreme Court career. The book also examines how Justice Stevens became increasingly important as a leading dissenter against the diminution of rights in criminal justice as the Supreme Court's composition became increasingly conservative in the 1980s and thereafter. Because of the nature and complexity of Justice Stevens's numerous and varied opinions over the course of his lengthy career, scholars find it difficult to characterize his judicial philosophy and impact with simple labels. Yet in the realm of criminal justice, close examination of his work reveals that he earned a reputation and an enduring legacy as an exceptionally important defender of constitutional rights.

The discrepancy between the fourteenth amendment's true meaning as originally understood, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of its meaning over time, has been dramatic and unfortunate. The amendment was intended to be a constitutional rule for the promotion and protection of people's rights, administered by the states as front-line regulators of life, liberty, and property, to be overseen by Congress and supported by federal legislation as necessary. In this book, William B. Glidden makes the case that instead, the amendment has operated as a judge-dominated, negative rights-against-government regime, supervised by the Supreme Court. Whenever Congress has enacted legislation to protect life, liberty, or property rights of people in the states, the laws were often overturned, narrowly construed, or forced to rely on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, under the Supreme Court's constraining interpretations. Glidden proposes that Congress must recover for itself or be restored to its proper role as the designated federal enforcement agency for the fourteenth amendment.

In 2006, Michigan voters banned affirmative action preferences in public contracting, education, and employment. The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) vote was preceded by years of campaigning, legal maneuvers, media coverage, and public debate. Ending Racial Preferences: The Michigan Story relates what happened from the vantage point of Toward A Fair Michigan (TAFM), a nonprofit organization that provided a civic forum for the discussion of preferences. The book offers a timely'inside look'into how TAFM fostered dialogue by emphasizing education over indoctrination, reason over rhetoric, and civil debate over protest. Ending Racial Preferences opens with a review of the campaigns for and against similar initiatives in California, Florida, Washington, and the city of Houston. The book then delivers an in-depth historical account of the MCRIDfrom its inception in 2003 through the first year following its passage in 2006. Readers are invited to decide for themselves whether affirmative action preferences are good for America. Carol M. Allen reproduces the remarks delivered at a TAFM debate, along with a compilation of pro and con responses by 14 experts to 50 questions about preferences. This book will be of interest to those working in the fields of public policy and state politics.

In Civil Rights and the Paradox of Liberal Democracy, Bradley Watson demonstrates the paradox of liberal democracy: that its cornerstone principles of equality and freedom are principles inherently directed toward undermining it. Modernity, beyond bringing definition to political equality, unleashed a whirlwind of individualism, which feeds the soul's basic impulse to rule without limitation including the limitation of consent. Here Watson begins his analysis of the foundations of liberalism, looking carefully and critically at the moral and political philosophies that justify modern civil rights litigation. He goes on to examine the judicial manifestations of the paradox of liberal democracy, seeking to bring a broad philosophical coherence to legal decision making in the United States and Canada. Finally, Watson illuminates the extent to which this decision making is in tension with liberal democracy, and outlines proposals for reform.