Resultados de Pesquisa

INGLÊS

Constitution Of The War On Drugs

de David Pozen

~~20,96€~~ 18,86€ 10% IMEDIATO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. It is free to read at Oxford Academic and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. An authoritative and first-of-its-kind critical constitutional history of the war on drugs that shows how drug prohibition was shaped by constitutional law, and how constitutional law was shaped by drug prohibition. The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year--all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment?In The Constitution of the War on Drugs, David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today.
INGLÊS

Constitution Of The War On Drugs

de David Pozen

~~20,96€~~ 18,86€ 10% IMEDIATO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. It is free to read at Oxford Academic and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. An authoritative and first-of-its-kind critical constitutional history of the war on drugs that shows how drug prohibition was shaped by constitutional law, and how constitutional law was shaped by drug prohibition. The U.S. government's decades-long "war on drugs" is increasingly recognized as a moral travesty as well as a policy failure. The criminalization of substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms offends core tenets of liberalism, from the right to self-rule to protection of privacy to freedom of religion. It contributes to mass incarceration and racial subordination. And it costs billions of dollars per year--all without advancing public health. Yet, in hundreds upon hundreds of cases, courts have allowed the war to proceed virtually unchecked. How could a set of policies so draconian, destructive, and discriminatory escape constitutional curtailment?In The Constitution of the War on Drugs, David Pozen provides an authoritative, critical constitutional history of the drug war, casting new light on both drug prohibition and U.S. constitutional development. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advocates argued that criminal drug bans violate the Constitution's guarantees of due process, equal protection, federalism, free speech, free exercise of religion, and humane punishment. Many scholars and jurists agreed. Pozen demonstrates the plausibility of a constitutional path not taken, one that would have led to a more compassionate approach to drug control. Rather than restrain the drug war, the Constitution helped to legitimate and entrench it. Pozen shows how a profoundly illiberal and paternalistic policy regime was assimilated into, and came to shape, an ostensibly liberal and pluralistic constitutional order. Placing the U.S. jurisprudence in comparative context, The Constitution of the War on Drugs offers a comprehensive review of drug-rights decisions along with a roadmap to constitutional reform options available today.
INGLÊS

Why We Vote

de Owen Fiss

~~18,54€~~ 16,69€ 10% IMEDIATO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 In Why We Vote, renowned legal scholar Owen Fiss offers a bold and daring reconstruction of judicial doctrine that gives expression to the democratic aspirations of the US Constitution. Fiss argues that embedded within the Constitution is a commitment to democracy, and that over the course of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court brought to fruition the principle that allows those who are ruled to choose their rulers. Each chapter focuses on Supreme Court cases that enlarged the freedom that democracy generates. Fiss points to rulings that allowed citizens to vote, facilitated the exercise of their right to vote, ensured the equality of votes, and provided feasible access to the ballot for independent candidates and new political parties. He celebrates these decisions and at the same time insists upon shifting the ground upon which these decisions rest--from equal protection of the laws to the recognition of a federal constitutional right to vote. Given the threat of democratic backsliding in a nation that has the world''s oldest democratic constitution, Fiss''s analysis and message are more important than ever.
INGLÊS

Why We Vote

de Owen Fiss

~~18,54€~~ 16,69€ 10% IMEDIATO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 In Why We Vote, renowned legal scholar Owen Fiss offers a bold and daring reconstruction of judicial doctrine that gives expression to the democratic aspirations of the US Constitution. Fiss argues that embedded within the Constitution is a commitment to democracy, and that over the course of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court brought to fruition the principle that allows those who are ruled to choose their rulers. Each chapter focuses on Supreme Court cases that enlarged the freedom that democracy generates. Fiss points to rulings that allowed citizens to vote, facilitated the exercise of their right to vote, ensured the equality of votes, and provided feasible access to the ballot for independent candidates and new political parties. He celebrates these decisions and at the same time insists upon shifting the ground upon which these decisions rest--from equal protection of the laws to the recognition of a federal constitutional right to vote. Given the threat of democratic backsliding in a nation that has the world''s oldest democratic constitution, Fiss''s analysis and message are more important than ever.
INGLÊS

Agreeing To Disagree - How The Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity And Freedom Of Conscience

de Michael W. Mcconnell e Nathan S. Chapman

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell provide an insightful overview of the legal history and meaning of the clause, as well as its value for promoting equal religious freedom and diversity in contemporary America. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", may be the most contentious and misunderstood provision of the entire U.S. Constitution. It lies at the heart of America''s culture wars. But what, exactly, is an "establishment of religion"? And what is a law "respecting" it? Many commentators reduce the clause to "the separation of church and state." This implies that church and state are at odds, that the public sphere must be secular, and that the Establishment Clause is in tension with the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. All of these implications misconstrue the Establishment Clause''s original purpose and enduring value for a religiously pluralistic society. The clause facilitates religious diversity and guarantees equality of religious freedom by prohibiting the government from coercing or inducing citizens to change their religious beliefs and practices. In Agreeing to Disagree, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell detail the theological, political, and philosophical underpinnings of the Establishment Clause, state disestablishment, and the disestablishment norms applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Americans in the early Republic were intimately acquainted with the laws used in England, the colonies, and early states to enforce religious uniformity. The Establishment Clause was understood to prohibit the government from incentivizing such uniformity. Chapman and McConnell show how the U.S. Supreme Court has largely implemented these purposes in cases addressing prayer in school, state funding of religious schools, religious symbols on public property, and limits on religious accommodations. In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause, Chapman and McConnell argue that the clause is best understood as a constitutional commitment for Americans to agree to disagree about matters of faith.
INGLÊS

Agreeing To Disagree - How The Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity And Freedom Of Conscience

de Michael W. Mcconnell e Nathan S. Chapman

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell provide an insightful overview of the legal history and meaning of the clause, as well as its value for promoting equal religious freedom and diversity in contemporary America. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", may be the most contentious and misunderstood provision of the entire U.S. Constitution. It lies at the heart of America''s culture wars. But what, exactly, is an "establishment of religion"? And what is a law "respecting" it? Many commentators reduce the clause to "the separation of church and state." This implies that church and state are at odds, that the public sphere must be secular, and that the Establishment Clause is in tension with the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. All of these implications misconstrue the Establishment Clause''s original purpose and enduring value for a religiously pluralistic society. The clause facilitates religious diversity and guarantees equality of religious freedom by prohibiting the government from coercing or inducing citizens to change their religious beliefs and practices. In Agreeing to Disagree, Nathan S. Chapman and Michael W. McConnell detail the theological, political, and philosophical underpinnings of the Establishment Clause, state disestablishment, and the disestablishment norms applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Americans in the early Republic were intimately acquainted with the laws used in England, the colonies, and early states to enforce religious uniformity. The Establishment Clause was understood to prohibit the government from incentivizing such uniformity. Chapman and McConnell show how the U.S. Supreme Court has largely implemented these purposes in cases addressing prayer in school, state funding of religious schools, religious symbols on public property, and limits on religious accommodations. In one of the most thorough accounts of the Establishment Clause, Chapman and McConnell argue that the clause is best understood as a constitutional commitment for Americans to agree to disagree about matters of faith.
INGLÊS

Collapse Of Constitutional Remedies

de Aziz Z. Huq

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 An exploration of how and why the Constitution''s plan for independent courts has failed to protect individuals'' constitutional rights, while advancing regressive and reactionary barriers to progressive regulation. Just recently, the Supreme Court rejected an argument by plaintiffs that police officers should no longer be protected by the doctrine of "qualified immunity" when they shoot or brutalize an innocent civilian. "Qualified immunity" is but one of several judicial inventions that shields state violence and thwarts the vindication of our rights. But aren''t courts supposed to be protectors of individual rights? As Aziz Huq shows in The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies, history reveals a much more tangled relationship between the Constitution''s system of independent courts and the protection of constitutional rights. While doctrines such as "qualified immunity" may seem abstract, their real-world harms are anything but. A highway patrol officer stops a person''s car in violation of the Fourth Amendment, violently yanked the person out and threw him to the ground, causing brain damage. A municipal agency fires a person for testifying in a legal proceeding involving her boss''s family-and then laughed in her face when she demanded her job back. In all these cases, state defendants walked away with the most minor of penalties (if any at all). Ultimately, we may have rights when challenging the state, but no remedies. In fact, federal courts have long been fickle and unreliable guardians of individual rights. To be sure, through the mid-twentieth century, the courts positioned themselves as the ultimate protector of citizens suffering the state''s infringement of their rights. But they have more recently abandoned, and even aggressively repudiated, a role as the protector of individual rights in the face of abuses by the state. Ironically, this collapse highlights the position that the Framers took when setting up federal courts in the first place. A powerful historical account of the how the expansion of the immunity principle generated yawning gap between rights and remedies in contemporary America, The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies will reshape our understanding of why it has become so difficult to effectively challenge crimes committed by the state.
INGLÊS

Collapse Of Constitutional Remedies

de Aziz Z. Huq

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 An exploration of how and why the Constitution''s plan for independent courts has failed to protect individuals'' constitutional rights, while advancing regressive and reactionary barriers to progressive regulation. Just recently, the Supreme Court rejected an argument by plaintiffs that police officers should no longer be protected by the doctrine of "qualified immunity" when they shoot or brutalize an innocent civilian. "Qualified immunity" is but one of several judicial inventions that shields state violence and thwarts the vindication of our rights. But aren''t courts supposed to be protectors of individual rights? As Aziz Huq shows in The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies, history reveals a much more tangled relationship between the Constitution''s system of independent courts and the protection of constitutional rights. While doctrines such as "qualified immunity" may seem abstract, their real-world harms are anything but. A highway patrol officer stops a person''s car in violation of the Fourth Amendment, violently yanked the person out and threw him to the ground, causing brain damage. A municipal agency fires a person for testifying in a legal proceeding involving her boss''s family-and then laughed in her face when she demanded her job back. In all these cases, state defendants walked away with the most minor of penalties (if any at all). Ultimately, we may have rights when challenging the state, but no remedies. In fact, federal courts have long been fickle and unreliable guardians of individual rights. To be sure, through the mid-twentieth century, the courts positioned themselves as the ultimate protector of citizens suffering the state''s infringement of their rights. But they have more recently abandoned, and even aggressively repudiated, a role as the protector of individual rights in the face of abuses by the state. Ironically, this collapse highlights the position that the Framers took when setting up federal courts in the first place. A powerful historical account of the how the expansion of the immunity principle generated yawning gap between rights and remedies in contemporary America, The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies will reshape our understanding of why it has become so difficult to effectively challenge crimes committed by the state.
INGLÊS

Saving The News - Why The Constitution Calls For Government Action To Preserve Freedom Of Speech

de Martha Minow

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 A detailed argument of how our government has interfered in the direction of America''s media landscape that traces major transformations in media since the printing press and charts a path for reform. In Saving the News, Martha Minow takes stock of the new media landscape. She focuses on the extent to which our constitutional system is to blame for the current parlous state of affairs and on our government''s responsibilities for alleviating the problem. As Minow shows, the First Amendment of the US Constitution assumes the existence and durability of a private industry. Although the First Amendment does not govern the conduct of entirely private enterprises, nothing in the Constitution forecloses government action to regulate concentrated economic power, to require disclosure of who is financing communications, or to support news initiatives where there are market failures. Moreover, the federal government has contributed financial resources, laws, and regulations to develop and shape media in the United States. Thus, Minow argues that the transformation of media from printing presses to the internet was shaped by deliberate government policies that influenced the direction of private enterprise. In short, the government has crafted the direction and contours of America''s media ecosystem.Building upon this basic argument, Minow outlines an array of reforms, including a new fairness doctrine, regulating digital platforms as public utilities, using antitrust authority to regulate the media, policing fraud, and more robust funding of public media. As she stresses, such reforms are not merely plausible ideas; they are the kinds of initiatives needed if the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press continues to hold meaning in the twenty-first century.
INGLÊS

Saving The News - Why The Constitution Calls For Government Action To Preserve Freedom Of Speech

de Martha Minow

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 A detailed argument of how our government has interfered in the direction of America''s media landscape that traces major transformations in media since the printing press and charts a path for reform. In Saving the News, Martha Minow takes stock of the new media landscape. She focuses on the extent to which our constitutional system is to blame for the current parlous state of affairs and on our government''s responsibilities for alleviating the problem. As Minow shows, the First Amendment of the US Constitution assumes the existence and durability of a private industry. Although the First Amendment does not govern the conduct of entirely private enterprises, nothing in the Constitution forecloses government action to regulate concentrated economic power, to require disclosure of who is financing communications, or to support news initiatives where there are market failures. Moreover, the federal government has contributed financial resources, laws, and regulations to develop and shape media in the United States. Thus, Minow argues that the transformation of media from printing presses to the internet was shaped by deliberate government policies that influenced the direction of private enterprise. In short, the government has crafted the direction and contours of America''s media ecosystem.Building upon this basic argument, Minow outlines an array of reforms, including a new fairness doctrine, regulating digital platforms as public utilities, using antitrust authority to regulate the media, policing fraud, and more robust funding of public media. As she stresses, such reforms are not merely plausible ideas; they are the kinds of initiatives needed if the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press continues to hold meaning in the twenty-first century.
INGLÊS

Liars - Falsehoods And Free Speech In An Age Of Deception

de Cass R. Sunstein

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 A powerful analysis of why lies and falsehoods spread so rapidly now, and how we can reform our laws and policies regarding speech to alleviate the problem.Lying has been with us from time immemorial. Yet today is different-and in many respects worse. All over the world, people are circulating damaging lies, and these falsehoods are amplified as never before through powerful social media platforms that reach billions. Liars are saying that COVID-19 is a hoax. They are claiming that vaccines cause autism. They are lying about public officials and about people who aspire to high office. They are lying about their friends and neighbors. They are trying to sell products on the basis of untruths. Unfriendly governments, including Russia, are circulating lies in order to destabilize other nations, including the United Kingdom and the United States. In the face of those problems, the renowned legal scholar Cass Sunstein probes the fundamental question of how we can deter lies while also protecting freedom of speech.To be sure, we cannot eliminate lying, nor should we try to do so. Sunstein shows why free societies must generally allow falsehoods and lies, which cannot and should not be excised from democratic debate. A main reason is that we cannot trust governments to make unbiased judgments about what counts as "fake news." However, governments should have the power to regulate specific kinds of falsehoods: those that genuinely endanger health, safety, and the capacity of the public to govern itself. Sunstein also suggests that private institutions, such as Facebook and Twitter, have a great deal of room to stop the spread of falsehoods, and they should be exercising their authority far more than they are now doing. As Sunstein contends, we are allowing far too many lies, including those that both threaten public health and undermine the foundations of democracy itself.
INGLÊS

Liars - Falsehoods And Free Speech In An Age Of Deception

de Cass R. Sunstein

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 A powerful analysis of why lies and falsehoods spread so rapidly now, and how we can reform our laws and policies regarding speech to alleviate the problem.Lying has been with us from time immemorial. Yet today is different-and in many respects worse. All over the world, people are circulating damaging lies, and these falsehoods are amplified as never before through powerful social media platforms that reach billions. Liars are saying that COVID-19 is a hoax. They are claiming that vaccines cause autism. They are lying about public officials and about people who aspire to high office. They are lying about their friends and neighbors. They are trying to sell products on the basis of untruths. Unfriendly governments, including Russia, are circulating lies in order to destabilize other nations, including the United Kingdom and the United States. In the face of those problems, the renowned legal scholar Cass Sunstein probes the fundamental question of how we can deter lies while also protecting freedom of speech.To be sure, we cannot eliminate lying, nor should we try to do so. Sunstein shows why free societies must generally allow falsehoods and lies, which cannot and should not be excised from democratic debate. A main reason is that we cannot trust governments to make unbiased judgments about what counts as "fake news." However, governments should have the power to regulate specific kinds of falsehoods: those that genuinely endanger health, safety, and the capacity of the public to govern itself. Sunstein also suggests that private institutions, such as Facebook and Twitter, have a great deal of room to stop the spread of falsehoods, and they should be exercising their authority far more than they are now doing. As Sunstein contends, we are allowing far too many lies, including those that both threaten public health and undermine the foundations of democracy itself.
INGLÊS

Democracy And Equality - The Enduring Constitutional Vision Of The Warren Court

de David A. Strauss e Geoffrey R. Stone

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren brought about many of the proudest achievements of American constitutional law. The Warren declared racial segregation and laws forbidding interracial marriage to be unconstitutional; it expanded the right of citizens to criticize public officials; it held school prayer unconstitutional; and it ruled that people accused of a crime must be given a lawyer even if they can''t afford one. Yet, despite those and other achievements, conservative critics have fiercely accused the justices of the Warren Court of abusing their authority by supposedly imposing their own opinions on the nation.As the eminent legal scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and David A. Strauss demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, the Warren Court''s approach to the Constitution was consistent with the most basic values of our Constitution and with the most fundamental responsibilities of our judiciary. Stone and Strauss describe the Warren Court''s extraordinary achievements by reviewing its jurisprudence across a range of issues addressing our nation''s commitment to the values of democracy and equality. In each chapter, they tell the story of a critical decision, exploring the historical and legal context of each case, the Court''s reasoning, and how the justices of the Warren Court fulfilled the Court''s most important responsibilities. This powerfully argued evaluation of the Warren Court''s legacy, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Warren Court, both celebrates and defends the Warren Court''s achievements against almost sixty-five years of unrelenting and unwarranted attacks by conservatives. It demonstrates not only why the Warren Court''s approach to constitutional interpretation was correct and admirable, but also why the approach of the Warren Court was far superior to that of the increasingly conservative justices who have dominated the Supreme Court over the past half-century.
INGLÊS

Democracy And Equality - The Enduring Constitutional Vision Of The Warren Court

de David A. Strauss e Geoffrey R. Stone

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren brought about many of the proudest achievements of American constitutional law. The Warren declared racial segregation and laws forbidding interracial marriage to be unconstitutional; it expanded the right of citizens to criticize public officials; it held school prayer unconstitutional; and it ruled that people accused of a crime must be given a lawyer even if they can''t afford one. Yet, despite those and other achievements, conservative critics have fiercely accused the justices of the Warren Court of abusing their authority by supposedly imposing their own opinions on the nation.As the eminent legal scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and David A. Strauss demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, the Warren Court''s approach to the Constitution was consistent with the most basic values of our Constitution and with the most fundamental responsibilities of our judiciary. Stone and Strauss describe the Warren Court''s extraordinary achievements by reviewing its jurisprudence across a range of issues addressing our nation''s commitment to the values of democracy and equality. In each chapter, they tell the story of a critical decision, exploring the historical and legal context of each case, the Court''s reasoning, and how the justices of the Warren Court fulfilled the Court''s most important responsibilities. This powerfully argued evaluation of the Warren Court''s legacy, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Warren Court, both celebrates and defends the Warren Court''s achievements against almost sixty-five years of unrelenting and unwarranted attacks by conservatives. It demonstrates not only why the Warren Court''s approach to constitutional interpretation was correct and admirable, but also why the approach of the Warren Court was far superior to that of the increasingly conservative justices who have dominated the Supreme Court over the past half-century.
INGLÊS

Religion Clauses - The Case For Separating Church And State

de Erwin Chemerinsky e Howard Gillman

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 Throughout American history, views on the proper relationship between the state and religion have been deeply divided. And, with recent changes in the composition of the Supreme Court, First Amendment law concerning religion is likely to change dramatically in the years ahead. In The Religion Clauses, Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman, two of America''s leading constitutional scholars, begin by explaining how freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment through two provisions. They defend a robust view of both clauses and work from the premise that that the establishment clause is best understood, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, as creating a wall separating church and state. After examining all the major approaches to the meaning of the Constitution''s religion clauses, they contend that the best approaches are for the government to be strictly secular and for there to be no special exemptions for religious people from neutral and general laws that others must obey. In an America that is only becoming more diverse with respect to religion, this is not only the fairest approach, but the one most in tune with what the First Amendment actually prescribes. Both a pithy primer on the meaning of the religion clauses and a broad-ranging indictment of the Court''s misinterpretation of them in recent years, The Religion Clauses shows how a separationist approach is most consistent with the concerns of the founders who drafted the Constitution and with the needs of a religiously pluralistic society in the 21st century.
INGLÊS

Religion Clauses - The Case For Separating Church And State

de Erwin Chemerinsky e Howard Gillman

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 Throughout American history, views on the proper relationship between the state and religion have been deeply divided. And, with recent changes in the composition of the Supreme Court, First Amendment law concerning religion is likely to change dramatically in the years ahead. In The Religion Clauses, Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman, two of America''s leading constitutional scholars, begin by explaining how freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment through two provisions. They defend a robust view of both clauses and work from the premise that that the establishment clause is best understood, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, as creating a wall separating church and state. After examining all the major approaches to the meaning of the Constitution''s religion clauses, they contend that the best approaches are for the government to be strictly secular and for there to be no special exemptions for religious people from neutral and general laws that others must obey. In an America that is only becoming more diverse with respect to religion, this is not only the fairest approach, but the one most in tune with what the First Amendment actually prescribes. Both a pithy primer on the meaning of the religion clauses and a broad-ranging indictment of the Court''s misinterpretation of them in recent years, The Religion Clauses shows how a separationist approach is most consistent with the concerns of the founders who drafted the Constitution and with the needs of a religiously pluralistic society in the 21st century.
INGLÊS

Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience - The Radical Significance Of The Free Exercise Of Religion

de Jack N. Rakove

17,21€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 Today, Americans believe that the early colonists came to the New World in search of religious liberty. What we often forget is that they wanted religious liberty for themselves, not for those who held other views that they rejected and detested. Yet, by the mid-18th century, the colonists agreed that everyone possessed a sovereign right of conscience. How did this change develop? In Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jack Rakove tracks the unique course of religious freedom in America.He finds that, as denominations and sects multiplied, Americans became much more tolerant of the free expression of rival religious beliefs. During the Revolutionary era, he explains, most of the new states moved to disestablish churches and to give constitutional recognition to rights of conscience. These two developments explain why religious freedom originally represented the most radical right of all. No other right placed greater importance on the moral autonomy of individuals, or better illustrated how the authority of government could be limited by denying the state authority to act. Together, these developments made possible the great revival of religion in 19th-century America.As Rakove explains, America''s intense religiosity eventually created a new set of problems for mapping the relationship between church and state. He goes on to examine some of our contemporary controversies over church and state not from the vantage point of legal doctrine, but of the deeper history that gave the U.S. its own approach to religious freedom. In this book, he tells the story of how American ideas of religious toleration and free exercise evolved over time, and why questions of church and state still vex us.
INGLÊS

Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience - The Radical Significance Of The Free Exercise Of Religion

de Jack N. Rakove

17,21€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 Today, Americans believe that the early colonists came to the New World in search of religious liberty. What we often forget is that they wanted religious liberty for themselves, not for those who held other views that they rejected and detested. Yet, by the mid-18th century, the colonists agreed that everyone possessed a sovereign right of conscience. How did this change develop? In Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jack Rakove tracks the unique course of religious freedom in America.He finds that, as denominations and sects multiplied, Americans became much more tolerant of the free expression of rival religious beliefs. During the Revolutionary era, he explains, most of the new states moved to disestablish churches and to give constitutional recognition to rights of conscience. These two developments explain why religious freedom originally represented the most radical right of all. No other right placed greater importance on the moral autonomy of individuals, or better illustrated how the authority of government could be limited by denying the state authority to act. Together, these developments made possible the great revival of religion in 19th-century America.As Rakove explains, America''s intense religiosity eventually created a new set of problems for mapping the relationship between church and state. He goes on to examine some of our contemporary controversies over church and state not from the vantage point of legal doctrine, but of the deeper history that gave the U.S. its own approach to religious freedom. In this book, he tells the story of how American ideas of religious toleration and free exercise evolved over time, and why questions of church and state still vex us.
INGLÊS

Hate - Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship

de Nadine (Professor Of Law, Professor Of Law, New York Law School) Strossen e Nadine Strossen

19,59€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

portes grátis

 In HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship, Strossen dispels the many misunderstandings that have clouded the perpetual debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," and shows that the U.S. First Amendment approach effectively promotes all pertinent concerns: free speech, democracy, equality and societal harmony
INGLÊS

Hate - Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship

de Nadine Strossen

11,91€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 In HATE: Fighting it With Free Speech, Not Censorship , Strossen dispels the many misunderstandings that have clouded the perpetual debates about <"hate speech vs. free speech,>" and shows that the U.S. First Amendment approach effectively promotes all pertinent concerns: free speech, democracy, equality and societal harmony
INGLÊS

Hate - Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship

de Nadine Strossen

11,91€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 In HATE: Fighting it With Free Speech, Not Censorship , Strossen dispels the many misunderstandings that have clouded the perpetual debates about <"hate speech vs. free speech,>" and shows that the U.S. First Amendment approach effectively promotes all pertinent concerns: free speech, democracy, equality and societal harmony
INGLÊS

Future Of Foreign Intelligence - Privacy And Surveillance In A Digital Age

de Laura K. Donohue

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 Renowned national security law scholar Laura Donohue traces the evolution of privacy law in the digital age, and pairs that account with a history of the growth of the national security state's intelligence apparatus over the last two decades.
INGLÊS

Future Of Foreign Intelligence - Privacy And Surveillance In A Digital Age

de Laura K. Donohue

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 Renowned national security law scholar Laura Donohue traces the evolution of privacy law in the digital age, and pairs that account with a history of the growth of the national security state's intelligence apparatus over the last two decades.
INGLÊS

Constitutional Personae - Heroes, Soldiers, Minimalists, And Mutes

de Cass R. Sunstein

18,54€ + 10% EM CARTÃO

DISPONIBILIDADE IMEDIATA

 In this groundbreaking book, eminent legal scholar Cass Sunstein argues that in every era, constitutional debates are, in fact, contests between four different types of 'Constitutional Personae' - Heroes, Soldiers, Minimalists, and Mutes.
A carregar resultados...

Ver mais resultados