Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title page -- Copyright page -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Organization of This Book -- 1 The Rise of the First Reconstruction -- Democratizing the Constitution -- Executive Branch Enforcement -- Black Officeholding -- Policy Consequences -- Conclusion -- 2 The Fall of the First Reconstruction -- Theories Explaining the End of the First Reconstruction -- Judicial Deconstruction -- Violence in the States -- Racially Polarized Partisanship -- Conclusion -- 3 The Rise of the Second Reconstruction -- Executive Branch: Enforcing Constitutional Rights -- Legislation: Re-Democratizing the Constitution -- The Quiet Revolution in Voting Rights -- Conclusion -- 4 The Compromise of 2016 -- Racially Polarized Partisanship -- Judicial Deconstruction -- De-Democratization in the States -- Conclusion -- 5 Reconstructing Reconstruction -- Multiracial Populism -- Taking Institutions Seriously -- Conclusion -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Introduction -- Chapter 1 The Rise of the First Reconstruction -- Chapter 2 The Fall of the First Reconstruction -- Chapter 3 The Rise of the Second Reconstruction -- Chapter 4 The Compromise of 2016 -- Chapter 5 Reconstructing Reconstruction -- Conclusion -- References -- Index -- EULA.

AbstractThe US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health ended the federal right to an abortion, first pronounced in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade. Dobbs has immediate implications for American women, but it also exposes a growing hostility by the court to the doctrine of 'substantive due process' on which many other federal rights rely. This article argues that the court's weakening of substantive due process is a direct challenge to the constitutional transformation wrought by the Fourteenth Amendment following the Civil War. The amendment asserted a national standard of fundamental rights, profoundly rebalancing power away from the states. Should the Supreme Court extend the logic of Dobbs, the national basis for many substantive due process rights will be removed. The court is reviving a kind of states' rights constitutional thinking hitherto unseen by the current generation of Americans.

AbstractRepublican support for the 1982 Voting Rights Act (VRA) extension is a puzzle for scholars of racial policy coalitions. The extension contained provisions that were manifestly antithetical to core principles of the "color-blind" policy alliance said to dominate the GOP. Recent scholarship has explained this puzzling decision by arguing that conservatives were confident that the VRA's most objectionable provisions could be undone by the federal bureaucracy and judiciary, while absolving Republicans of the blame of being against voting rights. This article suggests that the picture is more complicated. Applying the concept of "critical junctures" to the 1982 VRA extension, the article highlights the importance of actors' contingent decisions and reveals a wider range of choices available to political entrepreneurs than has been conventionally understood. Highlighting differing views within the Reagan administration, this article also identifies a wider range of reasons why Republicans supported the act's extension, including career ambition, party-building, policy agenda advancement, and genuine commitment, rather than simply a defensive stance as implied by recent histories.

Depictions of school choice offering greater individual and local autonomy are widespread, yet they sit uneasily with portrayals of such policies within African-American political discourse. This article analyses the ways in which opposition to publicly funded private school vouchers has been used as a cue to signal solidaristic ties to the African-American electorate. School choice is highly racialized. Black politicians have been known to campaign against school choice policies by presenting them as tools of White outsiders to break up and divide the Black community. Although opinion polls have indicated that a majority of African-American voters support education vouchers, in a campaign context school choice policies can be framed through the prisms of racial authenticity and community control. Using data drawn from interviews with political operatives and archival research in Newark, New Jersey, this article demonstrates that school choice can paradoxically be rendered as a policy of community disempowerment.