Search results

This book traces the origins of constitutional silence about the metropolis; explores how urban agglomeration affects the theory and practice of constitutional democracy; examines the constitutional status and jurisprudence of megacity autonomy/dependence; advances new arguments for granting the metropolis adequate constitutional standing; and probes the political economy of state-city constitutional relations across time and place.

This text traces the origins of constitutional silence about the metropolis; explores how urban agglomeration affects the theory and practice of constitutional democracy; examines the constitutional status and jurisprudence of megacity autonomy/dependence; advances new arguments for granting the metropolis adequate constitutional standing; and probes the political economy of state-city constitutional relations across time and place.

Concerned that the United States Supreme Court's abolition of the death penalty inFurman v. Georgia(1972) would not be sustained, abolitionists turned to state supreme courts. Through their efforts, two states succeeded in realizing that goal: California, briefly, and Massachusetts, where the death penalty remains unconstitutional.

State supreme courts use state constitutional provisions to afford their citizens state constitutional rights beyond the protections that the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution to require. As state supreme courts consider expanding state constitutional rights they engage in an ongoing dialogue with their sister state supreme courts. Results indicate this dialogue amongst state supreme courts influences decisions interpreting state constitutional rights. Denniston demonstrates through analysis of state supreme court decisions and interviews with state supreme court justice