Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
Chargement... Brennan Vs. Rehnquist: The Battle for the Constitutionpar Peter Irons
Aucun Chargement...
Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre. aucune critique | ajouter une critique
Peter Irons has become one of the leading interpreters of the Supreme Court and the Constitution for the American public. His books and articles have illuminated the process by which constitutional law has been made and shaped, from the New Deal period to the present. His work has focused on the human aspect of the law, on the ordinary people who bring cases to the Supreme Court, and the impact of the Court's decisions on their lives and the lives of all Americans. Now he gives us a brilliant and insightful book about two notable Supreme Court justices, William Brennan and William Rehnquist, and how their differing visions of the Constitution have affected the functioning of the law on issues that divide the Court and the country. We see Brennan: Democrat, son of an Irish Catholic labor leader, appointed to the Court by Eisenhower, believing in a "living Constitution" and the "legitimate expectations of every person to innate human dignity." And Rehnquist: raised in a conservative midwestern suburb, Goldwater activist, appointed by Nixon, vowing to "reverse the liberal excesses of the Warren Court." We see these two men serving together for two momentous decades, the leaders of the Court's liberal and conservative factions. We come to know them, their characters, their personalities, their beliefs. We explore the roots of their conflicting values: Brennan's vision of "human dignity" and Rehnquist's commitment to "judicial deference." And we watch as they battle for the votes of the Court's moderates in a hundred cases that deal with every major issue from religion and capital punishment to affirmative action and abortion. In a book that fluently combines history and biography, drama and explication, Peter Irons allows us to grasp in fascinating, eye-opening detail the way the law works in the life of America. Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque |
Discussion en coursAucun
Google Books — Chargement... GenresClassification décimale de Melvil (CDD)342.73Social sciences Law Constitutional and administrative law North America Constitutional law--United StatesClassification de la Bibliothèque du CongrèsÉvaluationMoyenne:
Est-ce vous ?Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing. |
All of the cases but seven related to conflict between government and the individual. Brennan voted against the government in each; Rehnquist always voted for the state. Irons summarizes the philosophy of each justice. Brennan constantly referred to the dignity of the individual; Rehnquist rarely did, instead applying the term “deference'” when discussing the relationship of the individual to the majority represented by the state. Brennan’s training as a Catholic and his exposure to the “social gospel” of the church explain his devotion to “justice and fair play and simple human dignity.” He linked the Declaration of Independence to “God-given inalienable rights” that stemmed from the truth of Christian faith. Freedom from the “absolute state” was the message he learned from his religious training. The Due Process clause of the fifth amendment as applied by the fourteenth was designed to limit governmental authority and to protect “life, liberty, and property.” The American Revolution represented a rejection of the prevailing assumptions of colonial social hierarchy, which provided governmental officials a great deal of arbitrary authority unchecked by law. Brennan also believed the role of the court and the Constitution was to protect minorities. The Borkian position that all substantive matters could be solved by a majoritarian process was not valid, argued Brennan. The principle of majority could not “rectify claims of minority right that arise as a response to the outcomes of that very majoritarian process.” He decried the “facile historicism” of conservatives, especially Attorney General Meese, who insisted that the meaning of “due process” was frozen in 1787. That position “establishes a presumption of resolving textual ambiguities against the claim of constitutional right,” and “turn[s:] a blind eye to social progress [and displays:] antipathy to claims of the minority to rights against the majority.” Rehnquist consistently applied a standard that was unabashedly majoritarian. The individual was subservient to the majority, and civil disobedience in support of any moral position was wrong. He had argued since his law school days that no moral position can be supported rationally. “Neither idealism of purpose nor self-proclaimed moral superiority on the part of the minority qualifies in the slightest way its obligation to obey the law,” he said.
An analysis of votes in more than 1200 votes and 164 signed opinions reveals that his votes were guided by the following three principles: the individual loses in a conflict with the state; conflicts between state and federal government were always resolved in favor of the state level; and lower level courts should always have jurisdiction when in conflict with federal courts. The role of the government is to enforce the will of the majority, by force if necessary. It’s ironic that Rehnquist, labeled a conservative, would promote the interests of the state while Brennan, the liberal, consistently sided with the rights of the individual against the state monolith. But that’s the problem with labels.
( )