Download Free Judicial Reconstruction And The Rule Of Law Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Judicial Reconstruction And The Rule Of Law and write the review.

American constitutional lawyers and legal historians routinely assert that the Supreme Court's state action doctrine halted Reconstruction in its tracks. But it didn't. Rethinking the Judicial Settlement of Reconstruction demolishes the conventional wisdom - and puts a constructive alternative in its place. Pamela Brandwein unveils a lost jurisprudence of rights that provided expansive possibilities for protecting blacks' physical safety and electoral participation, even as it left public accommodation rights undefended. She shows that the Supreme Court supported a Republican coalition and left open ample room for executive and legislative action. Blacks were abandoned, but by the president and Congress, not the Court. Brandwein unites close legal reading of judicial opinions (some hitherto unknown), sustained historical work, the study of political institutions, and the sociology of knowledge. This book explodes tired old debates and will provoke new ones.
The idea of building a blueprint ‘rule of law’ through military intervention has seized the imagination of practitioners and theorists alike in the past decade of peacebuilding operations, and an emphasis on simultaneous judicial reconstruction and security sector reform has emerged as their central strategy. This work, in a fresh approach based on recent military operations in Iraq and beyond, challenges both the universality of the blueprint and the doctrinal assumption that institutional reform by military interveners builds peace and legitimacy. In a comprehensive review, the essential role of the community in developing its own relationship with law, while interveners refocus exclusively on restoring public security using their extraordinary powers under international humanitarian law, emerges as the only future for ‘rule of law operations.’
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) -- Mapp v. Ohio (1961) -- Engel v. Vitale (1962) -- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) -- New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) -- Reynolds v. Sims (1964) -- Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) -- Miranda v. Arizona (1966) -- Loving v. Virginia (1967) -- Katz v. United States (1967) -- Shapiro v. Thompson (1968) -- Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
This book provides an analysis of key approaches to rule of law oversight in the EU and identifies deeper theoretical problems.
First published in 1999, this volume is a series of essays on the countries of Central Europe. The essays explore the post-1989 establishment of the rule of law and civil society. It brings together analysis and perceptions from social scientists, political scientists and lawyers, seeking through particular issues to explore the similarities and differences between different countries. While other books have explored the changes in former Soviet Block countries since 1989, the book’s distinctiveness lies in three qualities: its concentration on Central Europe a concept explored in the book; giving fuller attention to the Czech Republic and Slovakia than other post-communist studies often do; providing perceptions of scholars from different disciplines.
"John Marshall remains one of the towering figures in the landscape of American law. From the Revolution to the age of Jackson, he played a critical role in defining the "province of the judiciary" and the constitutional limits of legislative action. In this masterly study, Charles Hobson clarifies the coherence and thrust of Marshall's jurisprudence while keeping in sight the man as well as the jurist." "Hobson argues that contrary to his critics, Marshall was no ideologue intent upon appropriating the lawmaking powers of Congress. Rather, he was deeply committed to a principled jurisprudence that was based on a steadfast devotion to a "science of law" richly steeped in the common law tradition. As Hobson shows, such jurisprudence governed every aspect of Marshall's legal philosophy and court opinions, including his understanding of judicial review." "The chief justice, Hobson contends, did not invent judicial review (as many have claimed) but consolidated its practice by adapting common law methods to the needs of a new nation. In practice, his use of judicial review was restrained, employed almost exclusively against acts of the state legislatures. Ultimately, he wielded judicial review to prevent the states from undermining the power of a national government still struggling to establish sovereignty at home and respect abroad."--BOOK JACKET.Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This short and accessible book is the first to focus exclusively on the inter-relation between transitional justice and rule of law reconstruction in post-conflict and post-authoritarian states. In so doing it provides a provocative reassessment of the various tangled relationships between the two fields, exploring the blind-spots, contradictions and opportunities for mutually-beneficial synergies in practice and scholarship between them. Though it is commonly assumed that transitional justice for past human rights abuses is inherently conducive to restoring the rule of law, differences in how both fields conceptualise the rule of law, the scope of transition and obligations to citizens have resulted in divergent approaches to transitional criminal trial, international criminal law, restorative justice and traditional justice mechanisms. Adopting a critical comparative approach that assesses the experiences of post-authoritarian and post-conflict polities in Latin America, Asia, Europe and Africa undergoing transitional justice and justice sector reform simultaneously, it argues that the potential benefits of transitional justice are exaggerated and urges policy-makers to rebalance the compromises inherent in transitional justice mechanisms against the foundational demands of rule of law reconstruction. This book will be of interest to scholars in the fields of transitional justice, rule of law, legal pluralism and peace-building concerned by the failure of transitional justice to leave a positive legacy to the justice system of the states where it operates. ‘This is a bold and nuanced scrutiny of the international system’s approach to transitional justice and the much vaunted rule of law project. Dr McAulifee should be congratulated for this well-researched book which should be a must read for not only scholars and researchers in transitional justice and peace and conflict studies, but also policy-makers in the international system.’ Dr. Hakeem O. Yusuf, Senior Lecturer, University of Strathclyde and author of Transitional Justice, Judicial Accountability and the Rule of Law.
Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a constitution "requires that only its great outlines should be marked [and] its important objects designated." Ours is "intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." In recent years, Marshall's great truths have been challenged by proponents of originalism and strict construction. Such legal thinkers as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argue that the Constitution must be construed and applied as it was when the Framers wrote it. In Keeping Faith with the Constitution, three legal authorities make the case for Marshall's vision. They describe their approach as "constitutional fidelity"--not to how the Framers would have applied the Constitution, but to the text and principles of the Constitution itself. The original understanding of the text is one source of interpretation, but not the only one; to preserve the meaning and authority of the document, to keep it vital, applications of the Constitution must be shaped by precedent, historical experience, practical consequence, and societal change. The authors range across the history of constitutional interpretation to show how this approach has been the source of our greatest advances, from Brown v. Board of Education to the New Deal, from the Miranda decision to the expansion of women's rights. They delve into the complexities of voting rights, the malapportionment of legislative districts, speech freedoms, civil liberties and the War on Terror, and the evolution of checks and balances. The Constitution's framers could never have imagined DNA, global warming, or even women's equality. Yet these and many more realities shape our lives and outlook. Our Constitution will remain vital into our changing future, the authors write, if judges remain true to this rich tradition of adaptation and fidelity.