Intricately plotted, intelligently conceived, and relentlessly entertaining, Clark's novel ties together family loyalty and the legal system in one slippery knot.
This textbook emphasizes bridging the gap between understanding legal doctrines that impact the business environment and how business owners and managers use legal insight to limit liability and manag
This textbook emphasizes bridging the gap between understanding legal doctrines that impact the business environment and how business owners and managers use legal insight to limit liability and manag
What is the meaning of punishment today? Where is the limit that separates it from the cruel and unusual? In legal discourse, the distinction between punishment and vengeance—punishment being the meas
What is the meaning of punishment today? Where is the limit that separates it from the cruel and unusual? In legal discourse, the distinction between punishment and vengeance – punishment being the me
The conventional interpretation of equality under the law singles out certain groups or classes for constitutional protection: women, racial minorities, and gays and lesbians. The United States Supreme Court calls these groups 'suspect classes'. Laws that discriminate against them are generally unconstitutional. While this is a familiar account of equal protection jurisprudence, this book argues that this approach suffers from hitherto unnoticed normative and political problems. The book elucidates a competing, extant interpretation of equal protection jurisprudence that avoids these problems. The interpretation is not concerned with suspect classes but rather with the kinds of reasons that are already inadmissible as a matter of constitutional law. This alternative approach treats the equal protection clause like any other limit on governmental power, thus allowing the Court to invalidate equality-infringing laws and policies by focusing on their justification rather than the identity
The conventional interpretation of equality under the law singles out certain groups or classes for constitutional protection: women, racial minorities, and gays and lesbians. The United States Supreme Court calls these groups 'suspect classes'. Laws that discriminate against them are generally unconstitutional. While this is a familiar account of equal protection jurisprudence, this book argues that this approach suffers from hitherto unnoticed normative and political problems. The book elucidates a competing, extant interpretation of equal protection jurisprudence that avoids these problems. The interpretation is not concerned with suspect classes but rather with the kinds of reasons that are already inadmissible as a matter of constitutional law. This alternative approach treats the equal protection clause like any other limit on governmental power, thus allowing the Court to invalidate equality-infringing laws and policies by focusing on their justification rather than the identity
In recent years, the amount of new information emerging on climate change, ozone depletion and air pollution has been so great that international governing bodies are requesting that parties limit the
What does it mean to interpret the constitution? Does constitutional interpretation involve moral reasoning, or is legal reasoning something different? What does it mean to say that a limit on a right is justified? How does judicial review fit into a democratic constitutional order? Are attempts to limit its scope incoherent? How should a jurist with misgivings about the legitimacy of judicial review approach the task of judicial review? Is there a principled basis for judicial deference? Do constitutional rights depend on the protection of a written constitution, or is there a common law constitution that is enforceable by the courts? How are constitutional rights and unwritten constitutional principles to be reconciled? In this book, these and other questions are debated by some of the world's leading constitutional theorists and legal philosophers. Their essays are essential reading for anyone concerned with constitutional rights and legal theory.
What does it mean to interpret the constitution? Does constitutional interpretation involve moral reasoning, or is legal reasoning something different? What does it mean to say that a limit on a right is justified? How does judicial review fit into a democratic constitutional order? Are attempts to limit its scope incoherent? How should a jurist with misgivings about the legitimacy of judicial review approach the task of judicial review? Is there a principled basis for judicial deference? Do constitutional rights depend on the protection of a written constitution, or is there a common law constitution that is enforceable by the courts? How are constitutional rights and unwritten constitutional principles to be reconciled? In this book, these and other questions are debated by some of the world's leading constitutional theorists and legal philosophers. Their essays are essential reading for anyone concerned with constitutional rights and legal theory.
Throughout his early career, Sir Edward Coke joined many of his contemporaries in his concern about the uncertainty of the common law. Coke attributed this uncertainty to the ignorance and entrepreneurship of practitioners, litigants, and other users of legal power whose actions eroded confidence in the law. Working to limit their behaviours, Coke also simultaneously sought to strengthen royal authority and the Reformation settlement. Yet the tensions in his thought led him into conflict with James I, who had accepted many of the criticisms of the common law. Sir Edward Coke and the Reformation of the Laws reframes the origins of Coke's legal thought within the context of law reform and provides a new interpretation of his early career, the development of his legal thought, and the path from royalism to opposition in the turbulent decades leading up to the English civil wars.
Throughout his early career, Sir Edward Coke joined many of his contemporaries in his concern about the uncertainty of the common law. Coke attributed this uncertainty to the ignorance and entrepreneurship of practitioners, litigants, and other users of legal power whose actions eroded confidence in the law. Working to limit their behaviours, Coke also simultaneously sought to strengthen royal authority and the Reformation settlement. Yet the tensions in his thought led him into conflict with James I, who had accepted many of the criticisms of the common law. Sir Edward Coke and the Reformation of the Laws reframes the origins of Coke's legal thought within the context of law reform and provides a new interpretation of his early career, the development of his legal thought, and the path from royalism to opposition in the turbulent decades leading up to the English civil wars.
"Expand slavery or limit it? By 1818, the United States was deeply divided about what to do in Missouri, a territory that wanted to be a state. At issue was whether slavery would be legal in the new s
Smutty Little Movies traces the adult film industry’s transition from celluloid to home video beginning in the late 1970s and examines the cultural and legal efforts to regulate, contain, limit, or er
Smutty Little Movies traces the adult film industry’s transition from celluloid to home video beginning in the late 1970s and examines the cultural and legal efforts to regulate, contain, limit, or er
Red Tape tells the sometimes astonishing story of the making of laws, both good and bad, the recent explosion in rule making, and the failure of repeated attempts to rationalise the statute books - even governments themselves are concerned about the increasing number and complexity of our laws. Society requires the rule of law, but the rule of too much law means that the general public faces frustrating excesses created by overzealous regulators and lawmakers. Robin Ellison reveals the failure of repeated attempts to limit the number and complexity of new laws, and the expansion of regulators. He challenges the legislature to introduce fewer yet better laws and regulators by encouraging lawmakers to adopt practices which improve the efficiency of the law and the lives of everyone. Too much law leads to frustration for all - Red Tape is a long overdue exposé of our legal system for practitioners and consumers alike.
Red Tape tells the sometimes astonishing story of the making of laws, both good and bad, the recent explosion in rule making, and the failure of repeated attempts to rationalise the statute books - even governments themselves are concerned about the increasing number and complexity of our laws. Society requires the rule of law, but the rule of too much law means that the general public faces frustrating excesses created by overzealous regulators and lawmakers. Robin Ellison reveals the failure of repeated attempts to limit the number and complexity of new laws, and the expansion of regulators. He challenges the legislature to introduce fewer yet better laws and regulators by encouraging lawmakers to adopt practices which improve the efficiency of the law and the lives of everyone. Too much law leads to frustration for all - Red Tape is a long overdue exposé of our legal system for practitioners and consumers alike.
To what extent do courts in Latin America protect individual rights and limit governments? This volume answers these fundamental questions by bringing together today's leading scholars of judicial politics. Drawing on examples from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica and Bolivia, the authors demonstrate that there is widespread variation in the performance of Latin America's constitutional courts. In accounting for this variation, the contributors push forward ongoing debates about what motivates judges; whether institutions, partisan politics and public support shape inter-branch relations; and the importance of judicial attitudes and legal culture. The authors deploy a range of methods, including qualitative case studies, paired country comparisons, statistical analysis and game theory.
