Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Preface -- Contents -- Introduction -- 1 The Democratic Functions of Inflexible Constitutions -- 2 Judicial Review and Democratic Legitimacy -- 3 Judicial Review and Democratic Flourishing -- 4 Text and History in Hard Cases -- 5 Liberty, Strategy, and Tradition -- 6 Judicial Maintenance of Political Institutions -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Index

The Supreme Court appointments process is broken, and the timing couldn't be worse--for liberals or conservatives. The Court is just one more solid conservative justice away from an ideological sea change--a hard-right turn on an array of issues that affect every American, from abortion to environmental protection. But neither those who look at this prospect with pleasure nor those who view it with horror will be able to make informed judgments about the next nominee to the Court--unless the appointments process is fixed now. In The Next Justice, Christopher Eisgruber boldly proposes a way to.

Only with great trepidation do I undertake to comment upon Professor Karlan's fine Article.1 Much of what I know about voting rights law I have learned from her work, and her contribution to this Symposium is characteristically erudite, detailed, and cogent. I will therefore limit myself to offering four modest observations about her argument. My central point is simple: While Professor Karlan successfully identifies several empirical questions that critics of majority- black voting districts must answer, those same questions also raise problems for defenders of majority-black districts (including Professor Karlan herself). Professor Karlan's argument is directed against what I shall call "the Assembly Backlash Hypothesis": the idea that districting plans that increase the number of black legislators may nevertheless produce legislative assemblies less receptive to black interests. The Hypothesis maintains that by packing minority voters into a few districts, racial gerrymanders increase the likelihood that the state's remaining districts will elect representatives hostile to minority interests. If the Assembly Backlash Hypothesis were true, it would provide a reason for proponents of minority rights to oppose the creation of majority-black districts. Such districts might do nothing more than produce token representatives who would be doomed to lose again and again in unsympathetic assemblies. Professor Karlan demonstrates that the Assembly Backlash Hypothesis holds only when multiple conditions are met. Some of these conditions describe the nature of black political interests: Black political interests must differ from white political interests (otherwise there would be no need to worry that black representatives would become persistent losers in unsympathetic legislatures), but they must not differ too radically (otherwise black voters could never form coalitions with white voters). Other conditions apply to white political behavior: If whites resent black political power, then white voters may realign to ...

Religion has become a charged token in a politics of division. Religious Freedom and the Constitution offers practical, moderate, and appealing terms for the settlement of many hot-button issues that have plunged religious freedom into controversy. It calls Americans back to the project of finding fair terms of cooperation for a religiously diverse people, and it offers a valuable set of tools for working toward that end.

What does it mean to have a constitution? Scholars and students associated with Walter Murphy at Princeton University have long asked this question in their exploration of constitutional politics and judicial behavior. These scholars, concerned with the making, maintenance, and deliberate change of the Constitution, have made unique and significant contributions to our understanding of American constitutional law by going against the norm of court-centered and litigation-minded research. Beginning in the late 1970s, this new wave of academics explored questions ranging from the nature of creating the U.S. Constitution to the philosophy behind amending it. In this collection, Sotirios A. Barber and Robert P. George bring together fourteen essays by members of this Princeton group--some of the most distinguished scholars in the field. These works consider the meaning of having a constitution, the implications of particular choices in the design of constitutions, and the meaning of judicial supremacy in the interpretation of the Constitution. The overarching ambition of this collection is to awaken a constitutionalist consciousness in its readers--to view themselves as potential makers and changers of constitutions, as opposed to mere subjects of existing arrangements. In addition to the editors, the contributors are Walter F. Murphy, John E. Finn, Christopher L. Eisgruber, James E. Fleming, Jeffrey K. Tulis, Suzette Hemberger, Stephen Macedo, Sanford Levinson, H. N. Hirsch, Wayne D. Moore, Keith E. Whittington, and Mark E. Brandon