The Constitution of Conflict : How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking)

個数:
  • 予約

The Constitution of Conflict : How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking)

  • 現在予約受付中です。出版後の入荷・発送となります。
    重要:表示されている発売日は予定となり、発売が延期、中止、生産限定品で商品確保ができないなどの理由により、ご注文をお取消しさせていただく場合がございます。予めご了承ください。

    ●3Dセキュア導入とクレジットカードによるお支払いについて
  • 【入荷遅延について】
    世界情勢の影響により、海外からお取り寄せとなる洋書・洋古書の入荷が、表示している標準的な納期よりも遅延する場合がございます。
    おそれいりますが、あらかじめご了承くださいますようお願い申し上げます。
  • ◆画像の表紙や帯等は実物とは異なる場合があります。
  • ◆ウェブストアでの洋書販売価格は、弊社店舗等での販売価格とは異なります。
    また、洋書販売価格は、ご注文確定時点での日本円価格となります。
    ご注文確定後に、同じ洋書の販売価格が変動しても、それは反映されません。
  • 製本 Hardcover:ハードカバー版/ページ数 304 p.
  • 言語 ENG
  • 商品コード 9780700640386
  • DDC分類 342.73044

Full Description

A bold and timely proposal for rethinking the role of the Supreme Court in the separation of powers.

There is a widespread sense today that the separation-of-powers system is broken or dysfunctional and has become an obstacle to effective government. The Constitution of Conflict demonstrates that much of the problem comes from attempts to find legal answers to political problems. Challenging long-held assumptions about the Constitution, Thomas Rives Bell boldly argues that a separation-of-powers doctrine enforceable by the Court is inconsistent with the constitutional design. Rather than establishing a legal doctrine, the Constitution set into motion a dynamic political system that governs through conflict within and among differentiated institutional structures.

Bell shows that Congress and the president have previously found constitutional solutions to issues like the administrative state, only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court. He critiques the Court's different methodologies for resolving these disputes, demonstrating that, rhetoric aside, both originalist accounts and functionalist understandings seek primarily to enforce the separation of powers for its own sake rather than understanding the political system as the proper means by which to achieve the Constitution's aspirations. Judicial superintendence of the separation of powers, moreover, places the Court above rather than within the constitutional framework. Bell proposes that the Court's role in such disputes should be confined to government actions that directly implicate rights rather than to the policing of interbranch boundaries between Congress and the president.

Bell applies his proposed political framework to four case studies: the legislative veto, executive agreements, recess appointments, and congressional oversight and impeachment. These cases illuminate the logic and dynamic of the separation of powers, demonstrating that political conflict, rather than legal settlement, is an essential element of the constitutional design.

最近チェックした商品