The Supreme Court's Constitution: An Inquiry Into Judicial Review and Its Impact on SocietyTransaction Publishers - 215 頁 The U.S. Court has exercised enormous influence on American society throughout its history. Although the Court is considered the guardian of the Constitution, the Constitution does not specifically set forth the Court's power to strike down federal or state legislation, nor does it provide guidance on how this power should be applied. In this critical examination of Supreme Court opinions, Bernard Siegan argues that the Court has frequently ruled both contrary to and without guidance from Constitutional meaning and purpose. He concludes that the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly become more the maker than the interpreter of fundamental law. The author offers a detailed analysis of the Constitution and numerous Supreme Court cases involving controversial issues ranging from the line between federal and state powers to the validity of measures according to preferential treatment for minorities and women. The book is essential reading for everyone interested in understanding the differences between activist and literalist traditions in the high court. |
搜尋書籍內容
第 1 到 5 筆結果,共 36 筆
... considered the guardian of the Constitution ; yet that document does not specifically empower it to exercise judicial review over either federal or state legislation . Nor , assuming such power was intended , does the Constitution ...
... considered to be one of limited and enumerated powers , with Congress having only those powers delegated to it , either specifically or by necessary implication . Powers not delegated remained with either the states or the people . Thus ...
... for circulation as currency ) ; and to make sumptuary laws . Each of these proposals was introduced and either voted down or not further considered outside of committee . Such an outcome is to be expected given the political Federalism.
... considered " as among the surplusage which has often proceed [ ed ] from inattention as caution . " 18 Jefferson agreed with these observations , and as Randolph had done , relied in part on the then pending tenth amendment to support ...
... considered the Bank Bill , Madison , then a Congressman from Virginia , opposed it , arguing that the necessary and proper clause did not provide the requisite authority . Whatever meaning this clause may have , none can be admitted ...