Book Description
The underlying theme of the book examines the relationship of administrative agencies to democracy, in particular, how the law attempts to keep daily practices of government agencies accountable.
The book includes discussions of bureaucracy and democracy; agency discretion and the requirement of fairness; delegation; agency rulemaking, investigations and information collection; agency adjudications; and accountability through reviewability, accessibility, and liability.
For professionals practicing law, and those in the political science community.
Book Description
Offers a systematic exploration of the legal construction of American democracy. The book brings together a cluster of issues in law regulating the design of democratic institution. Employing historical, comparative, theoretical and doctrinal methods, the book explores foundational questions in the theory and practice of democracy.
Customer Reviews:
A tour de force.......1999-11-23
This is a tour de force on one of the most important yet most neglected areas of the law. I took a course from this book, and it was one of the best experiences I had in law school.
Book Description
Samuel Adams is perhaps the most unheralded and overshadowed of the founding fathers, yet without him there would have been no American Revolution. A genius at devising civil protests and political maneuvers that became a trademark of American politics, Adams astutely forced Britain into coercive military measures that ultimately led to the irreversible split in the empire. His remarkable political career addresses all the major issues concerning America's decision to become a nation -- from the notion of taxation without representation to the Declaration of Independence. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams all acknowledged that they built our nation on Samuel Adams' foundations. Now, in this riveting biography, his story is finally told and his crucial place in American history is fully recognized.
Customer Reviews:
An inspirational account of one of our greatest founders.......2007-09-13
Compared to the other fundamental founders, hardly any primary sources remain of Adams since he wasn't preoccupied with his place in history and didn't save documents and correspondence. As such, Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution is a short read, but is a relatively concise and well-written account of his political life. Adams himself was extraordinary, and after reading this book, it's easy to see that he is exceedingly underappreciated as one of the greatest American revolutionaries. Adams is a testament to the ability of one man to change the political landscape for the better, and he is inspirational as a one-man harbinger of liberty.
The Father of the American Revolution Is Given His Due.......2007-05-22
No one has articulated it any better than Mark Puls when he states in his concluding remarks that " Americans of his generation came to view Samuel Adams as the spirit of liberty and the patriarch of liberty". Jefferson may have written about the ideals of independence more eloquently; Washington may have acted upon those ideals more directly; and, Franklin may have translated those ideals more concretely abroad to our French allies; however, no one of our founding fathers wrote more frequently, acted more fervently, or lived more fully and focused on the prize of separation and independence than Samuel Adams.
Maybe it's because Adams shunned the spotlight and the attention that others of his era sought so impassionately to grasp, or perhaps, he was content to simply see from the background the ultimate fruits of his prodigious labors. Whatever the reason, Adams emerged as the leading patriot strategist,politician as well as most influential writer in America. The author has truly captured the essence of the man who deservedly is called the Father of the American Revolution. It is a well-witten, if not long overdue, tribute to the mastermind behind the War of independence.
S. A. shows one person can truly make a difference.......2007-04-21
Give the author an "A" for producing a very interesting and informative look at an Adams family member who has not received the attention from history he deserves. Give the publisher "F" for not being interested enough to have a proofreader correct the numerous grammatical errors before printing it.
Good bio of the Father of the American Revolution.......2007-02-25
When you read about most revolutionary war figures - Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson or Madison - their stories more or less start with the American Revolution. Even Ben Franklin, a member of an earlier generation, did not jump on the Independence wagon very early or very easily. Samuel Adams, however, was the most important figure in the early Independence movement and quite rightfully deserves the title Father of the American Revolution.
Mark Puls brief (less than 250 pages of text) biography shows how important Adams was. From an early age, Adams started thinking of independence from England. In 1764, he unsuccessfully opposed the Sugar Act, but laid the foundation for his battle against the 1765 Stamp Act. Showing both good organizational ability and political savvy, he was able to successfully organize a boycott that forced Parliament to repeal the measure. Although it would take a decade to take root, this was really the first blow for independence; it began harder and harder for the British to deal with colonial unrest.
Eventually, after acts like the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party, the rift widened and reconciliation, though attempted, was clearly impossible. During the Revolutionary War, Adams played key roles behind the scenes. Although not an author of the Declaration of Independence, his ideas permeated the document; he also helped construct the Articles of Confederation. After the war, however, other figures moved into the spotlight, a role he was fine with giving up.
In ways Samuel Adams was an idealist, willing to sacrifice his health and financial well-being to accomplish his objectives. He was also, however, a pragmatist, able to work behind the scenes to meet his goals. Reading his biography, however, is also a lesson on how we determine who are our "heroes." In certain ways, Adams is little different from John Calhoun, who also felt he was opposing an oppressive government. Adams, however, is generally looked on favorably, while Calhoun - a major proponent of slavery and one who helped start the secession movement - has, at best, a mixed reputation.
Puls biography is a positive one that never really discusses his subject's flaws, but doesn't descend into the cloying sweetness of hagiography. Well-written, this book is readable and informative, providing insight into one of the lesser-known figures of the era. For those who enjoy learning about this period, or who seem to only know Samuel Adams from the beer that bears his name, this book will be a good read.
THE MAN OF THE REVOLUTION .......2007-01-15
One of the seeming paradoxes of the American Revolution is that, unlike later revolutions, the issues in dispute, centrally the question of taxation without representation, appear from this distance to have been resolvable by essentially parliamentary means until very late in the conflict. This is reflected in the attitudes and political maneuverings of the members of the various colonial leaderships, Samuel Adams included. Unlike the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution there were apparently few conscious revolutionaries ready to take drastic action to gain independence until events forced their hands. Moreover, unlike those revolutions which were more or less predicted by substantial numbers of the people involved based on a whole series of social, political and economic factors the situation in America did not on the surface cry out for such a resolution. However, like those governments the various pre-revolutionary British governments and particularly the person of George III clung to their prerogatives beyond all reason. That is the unifying factor between all three revolutions.
That said, Samuel Adams, by hook or by crook, stands heads above the other colonial leaders in pressing the fight against the Crown to the end. He, unlike others in the various colonial leaderships, did not waiver when it became clear that nothing short of independence would resolve the conflict. From the time of the fight against the Stamp Act through the fight over the quartering of British troops in Boston to the ramifications of the Boston Massacre, the Townsend Acts, the Tea Party, the creation of the committees of correspondence to the call for the Continental Congress his name, thought and pen are linked to the struggles, particularly the struggles in Massachusetts, a pivotal locale of the colonial struggles. Moreover, again unlike other leaders, he was throughout the controversies connected with the plebian masses through the Sons of Liberty. Thus, without exaggeration he can truly be called a tribune of the people. That he has been placed on a lesser level in the pantheon of revolutionary heroes has more to do with how and who writes history than in the measure of the importance of his role in the Revolution.
One can make a strong argument that Adams's organizational skills were critical to the successful union of the colonies into a unitary fighting force against the Crown. His committees of correspondence which he initiated in Massachusetts as a means for dispensing information, producing propaganda and cohering a collective leadership for that colony and which he was instrumental in expanding to the other colonies led to the Continental Congress and thereafter to its call for a Declaration of Independence. No, he did not have a big role in the Declaration itself nor did he play a national role in the revolutionary struggle but one can clearly see his imprint on the thinking (and doing) of the times. The American Revolution was carried out by big men doing a big job. Sam Adams was a big man. If a closet Tory like his cousin John Adams has, due to recent biographical publicity, emerged as a bigger icon in the revolutionary galaxy then Sam Adams's certainly needs to be reevaluated. Read more.
Book Description
Should the Supreme Court have the last word when it comes to interpreting the Constitution? The justices on the Supreme Court certainly seem to think so--and their critics say that this position threatens democracy. But Keith Whittington argues that the Court's justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the benefit of politicians. In this sweeping political history of judicial supremacy in America, Whittington shows that presidents and political leaders of all stripes have worked to put the Court on a pedestal and have encouraged its justices to accept the role of ultimate interpreters of the Constitution.
Whittington examines why presidents have often found judicial supremacy to be in their best interest, why they have rarely assumed responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, and why constitutional leadership has often been passed to the courts. The unprecedented assertiveness of the Rehnquist Court in striking down acts of Congress is only the most recent example of a development that began with the founding generation itself. Presidential bids for constitutional leadership have been rare, but reflect the temporary political advantage in doing so. Far more often, presidents have cooperated in increasing the Court's power and encouraging its activism. Challenging the conventional wisdom that judges have usurped democracy, Whittington shows that judicial supremacy is the product of democratic politics.
Book Description
This powerfully argued appraisal of judicial review may change the face of American law. Written for layman and scholar alike, the book addresses one of the most important issues facing Americans today: within what guidelines shall the Supreme Court apply the strictures of the Constitution to the complexities of modern life?
Until now legal experts have proposed two basic approaches to the Constitution. The first, "interpretivism," maintains that we should stick as closely as possible to what is explicit in the document itself. The second, predominant in recent academic theorizing, argues that the courts should be guided by what they see as the fundamental values of American society. Mr. Ely demonstrates that both of these approaches are inherently incomplete and inadequate. Democracy and Distrust sets forth a new and persuasive basis for determining the role of the Supreme Court today.
Ely's proposal is centered on the view that the Court should devote itself to assuring majority governance while protecting minority rights. "The Constitution," he writes, "has proceeded from the sensible assumption that an effective majority will not unreasonably threaten its own rights, and has sought to assure that such a majority not systematically treat others less well than it treats itself. It has done so by structuring decision processes at all levels in an attempt to ensure, first, that everyone's interests will be represented when decisions are made, and second, that the application of those decisions will not be manipulated so as to reintroduce in practice the sort of discrimination that is impermissible in theory.
Thus, Ely's emphasis is on the procedural side of due process, on the preservation of governmental structure rather than on the recognition of elusive social values. At the same time, his approach is free of interpretivism's rigidity because it is fully responsive to the changing wishes of a popular majority. Consequently, his book will have a profound impact on legal opinion at all levels-from experts in constitutional law, to lawyers with general practices, to concerned citizens watching the bewildering changes in American law.
Customer Reviews:
Tough Book-Interesting Idea.......2006-12-13
This is simply to say that if you are a student, and you are assigned this book, give yourself enough time to read it. It is thick, and Ely does things like stop in the middle of sentences and begin to talk to himself. It makes his idea difficult to follow. He also writes 6+ line sentences with no punctuation. It's not an impossible read, but it's not an overnight read either, FYI.
Seminal work from late scholar.......2003-11-04
One of the most cited Constitutional law scholars in legal history, John Hart Ely's book was published in 1980. The book, which earned the Order of the Coif award as the best book about law published from 1980 to 1982, focused on the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. He wrote that the judiciary's role was to assure democracy with an open and fair political process - without focusing solely on the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution, or inferring moral rights and values from the document's wording. Stanford Law School Dean Kathleen M. Sullivan said of the important book: "'Democracy and Distrust' is a masterpiece that combines elegant theory, raffish wit and a heartfelt search to ger the role of the Supreme Court in American democracy just right." The book angers many conservatives, who tend to believe that judges should avoid such interpretations of the Constitution, however this book, and his many other articles on Constitution law, are necessary reading for any well-read lawyer.
Juridprudence: Is there a middle ground?.......2001-07-12
This excellent little book tries to find a middle ground between the judicial activism advocated by Ronald Dworkin, for example, and the strict original intent approach eloquently defended by Robert Bork. Philosophy of jurisprudence is not always a concept easily grasped, however. In the first chapter, Ely takes us through the discussion of where and how judges drive their activist approach through the door. Ely agrees that the due process clause of the constitution is not the place where an activist jurist should hang his hat. The due process clause, he argues, is concerned strictly with procedural matters, though it can be forcefully enforced within that context. Likewise, he argues, the 14th amendment, with its equality clause and privileges and immunities clause, also has been used to broadly expand judicial oversight on a number of issues. Again, Ely dissents by arguing that the 9th amendment is the more appropriate vehicle because of the procedure issue that constrains the due process clause as well in the 14th amendment.
Judicial review must be rooted in some kind of context - but the noninterpretivist must choose, traditionally, from a long list of inadequate places: individual values of a jurist is inadequate; natural law is vague, as is moral philosophy generally; consensus is imprecise and debatable and neutral principle is damn near impossible to define. He roots his own support of Warren court in participation, which is rooted in our very notion of democracy. His phrase: "participatory responsiveness." We need not grasp at high moral claims to justify supporting civil rights, but in the simple idea that what is available to the majority, must be equally available to the minority. They must be allowed to participate equally, he seems to be arguing, a notion that is easily found in our own legal and constitutional history.
Next Ely walks us through the ways we might address specific issues within his theoretical approach, such as free speech, which need not be defended always in the broadest terms, but might be better addressed as a procedural or participatory issue - that is to say, if the court acts to limit free speech, it is best to do so through categories of unprotected speech rather than appealing to abstract rights or dangers, such as Holmes did when he spoke of imminent danger. (I hope I am following him here). He also addresses the issue of apportionment, and again seeks to have the court avoid such political entanglements by searching for the best way to allow all citizens the right to participate in our democracy - and one person, one vote became the only tenable way to do so. Ely includes in chapter 4 a short but helpful review of the constitution in which he discusses the document for what it is - not an abstract or ideological document, but rather a governing tool that seeks to protect a system, not push an ideological agenda. I wish he had added specific cases and shown how he might have handled them through his approach, particularly tough cases like abortion, for example. THe last chapter rambles a bit and is hard to follow but this is an interesting book, given that the hotly debated issue about judicial activism continues.
A true classic.......1999-10-05
John Ely's masterpiece on the the proper scope of judicial review is a must-read for anyone interested in the Supreme Court or just law in general. In short, Ely feels the Court should limit its power to assuring adequate access to the political process for all and not to giving answers to substantive issues such as abortion, affirmative action, economic rights, etc. In short, the book is a strong defense of the activism of the Warren Court (Ely clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren and the book is dedicated to his memory). Though the emphasis on the work of the Warren Court may make the book seem a little outdated, the book is nevertheless relevant since it provides a partial justification for the abandonment of substantive due process that conservatives such as Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork have argued for in the 80's and 90's while at the same time defending certain types of judicial activism (for example, in voting rights or gay rights cases) that appeal to liberals. Though Ely's insights into constitutional law are brilliant (his corpus of law review articles from the 70's, many of which form the foundation for this book, provides some of the most well-thought arguments on many diverse areas of constitutional scholarship), his arguments are not without their weakpoints (though you may have to read the book a few times to find them- not a bad idea in any case). Specifically, the manner in which he derives his so-called "representation reinforcement" theory is problematic. It seems to be somewhat of a non sequiter to argue, as he does, that since one of the main themes of constitutional development has been the extension of access to the political process (in the form of the extension of the franchise, abolition of the federal poll tax, etc), the Court's should use such a development as a cue for how to read the Constitution. It not only seems to cheapen the amendment process, but also begs the question of why more democracy is desirable. In addition, Ely's theory of equal protection depends upon a good deal of psychology (trying to read the feelings that motivated legislators and their constituents) that sometimes leaves you scratching your head. While the arguments of the book are not perfect, it would be a mistake to think that any of them are severe enough to detract from the sum total of the wisdom contained in this unparalleled piece of legal scholarship.
One of the great law books.......1998-01-17
Professor John Hart Ely's "Democracy and Distrust" is, quite simply, one of the great books about American constitutional law. Ely's task, to come up with a cohesive and coherent theory for judicial review, is far from a simple task, and yet his writing is so smooth and easy that the task *seems* easy. It is relatively easy to summarize Ely's general theory in few words. He argues that the American process is essentially democratic and that the role of the courts should be to police that process. In particular, Ely focuses on the voting-rights amendments, the First Amendment (as speech is essential to a free and open democracy), and the protection of "discrete and insular minorities."
What is perhaps most startling about Ely's work is that, despite the fact that he comes from what may accurately be termed a liberal perspective, he rejects fundamental values as a means of making constitutional law. This rejection is particularly surprising in that so many of the liberal constitutional advances have come in the name of fundamental values. Yet Ely makes his case persuasively, listing and rejecting many of the possible bases for such values (from natural law to the judges' own values to consensus, e.g.).
"Democracy and Distrust" is an eminently accessible book for anyone with even a small background in constitutional law. Though the book would probably be beyond the ken of high-school students or college undergraduates without any exposure to legal thought, certainly no degree in law is required to understand the book. Ely aptly avoids excessive legal jargon and outlines his theory in language designed to persuade, not to impress.
If there is any criticism of "Democracy and Distrust" (and there is), it is that Ely presents his theory nearly in a vacuum. There are most assuredly other theories of judicial review, many of which are quite different from Ely's (to the point, almost, that one suspects there must be more than one Constitution to produce such disparate theories). In addition, there are clearly parts of the Constitution that are not directly concerned with democracy (the Fourth Amendment, for example, which Ely only mentions in passing), and the theory in this book cannot be comprehensive for failure to accommodate these parts of the Constitution.
For anyone with an interest in constitutional law, Ely should be required reading.
Book Description
Constitutional democracy is a political hybrid, the product of an uneasy union between, on the one hand, the normative theories of constitutionalism and democracy and, on the other, the desire to live under what James Madison called "free government." In this engaging and provocative work, Walter F. Murphy combines a lifetime's study of constitutions and democracy with traditional storytelling to answer fundamental questions about constitutional democracy: How is it created? How is it maintained? How can it be adapted to changing circumstances?
Murphy begins with a definitional section on constitutions, constitutional texts, constitutionalism, and democracy. Next, he tells the story of how a democracy is established within the context of a fictional constitutional convention for a fictional country. He follows delegates -- many of whose arguments track those of real-life political, economic, and legal theorists -- as they debate and draft the components of a constitution. Here, the reader comes to understand and appreciate the components of a constitutional text and the contingency and potential of the constitution-making process. Murphy then offers an expository analysis of constitutional maintenance, adaptation, and, essentially, constitutional change.
Customer Reviews:
Scholarly and yet interesting.......2007-07-29
Murphy has made a scholarly subject interesting even for those who do not have a background in theory of governments and practical politics. The form and nature of our governments are of utmost important to our individual life- plans and a happy life. Murphy reaches the conclusion, via a debate, that Constitutional Democracy is the best form of government to fulfill aspirations of citizens. Rejecting all forms of dictatorship and totalitarianism at the outset Murphy's debaters consider constitutional democracy, representative democracy, coercive capitalism, consociational democracy and perfectionism. The debaters put forward their point of view in favor of the system they think is the best. Here, Murphy has drawn from experience of nations and political philosophy from ancient times till to today to present pros and cons of each system. He ultimately chooses Constitutional Democracy rejecting others. His book can serve as a guide in creation of institutions required for functioning of a constitutional democracy. His detailed treatment of maintaining and changing a constitutional order brings to our attention the great complexities of our political system which we take for granted and are instead inundated with an overdose of everyday squabbles of vested interests, what we call petty politics.
That such a scholarly work has typos and factual errors is regrettable.
There are one or two incomplete sentences, wrong words in sentences making them incomprehensible and factual errors. With my knowledge limited to details of India, I have noticed that facts about examples from India are mistaken about religious identities of the parties involved. While praising the maturity of Indian voters in ousting Indira Gandhi from power because she tried to subvert democratic institutions, he does not mention that the same people voted her back to power within two and a half years.
That such short a public memory is a lesson to be learned for people considering design of a political system seems to have missed his attention. However, this does not much reduce the importance of his work which should be read by anybody interested in understanding the complex world of governance.
Book Description
Like the canaries that alerted miners to a poisonous atmosphere, issues of race point to underlying problems in society that ultimately affect everyone, not just minorities. Addressing these issues is essential. Ignoring racial differences--race blindness--has failed. Focusing on individual achievement has diverted us from tackling pervasive inequalities. Now, in a powerful and challenging book, Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres propose a radical new way to confront race in the twenty-first century.
Given the complex relationship between race and power in America, engaging race means engaging standard winner-take-all hierarchies of power as well. Terming their concept "political race," Guinier and Torres call for the building of grass-roots, cross-racial coalitions to remake those structures of power by fostering public participation in politics and reforming the process of democracy. Their illuminating and moving stories of political race in action include the coalition of Hispanic and black leaders who devised the Texas Ten Percent Plan to establish equitable state college admissions criteria, and the struggle of black workers in North Carolina for fair working conditions that drew on the strength and won the support of the entire local community.
The aim of political race is not merely to remedy racial injustices, but to create truly participatory democracy, where people of all races feel empowered to effect changes that will improve conditions for everyone. In a book that is ultimately not only aspirational but inspirational, Guinier and Torres envision a social justice movement that could transform the nature of democracy in America.
Customer Reviews:
Reframing a volatile issue.......2005-04-08
Racism has been an impediment in living up to our ideals as a democracy. It will continue to be a sensitive and volatile issue here in America unless we make an effort to eliminate it. The authors have done a formidable job in reframing the problem in a way to help us trancend it, come together and work toward a solution to what W.E.B. DuBois called the problem of the 20th century. It's a difficult book but well worth the effort!
You are kidding me?.......2004-05-19
I know that professors from Harvard and UT are smart, but do they really feel the need to express this in their writing? The entire first chapter of this book is nothing but fluff, using nearly incomprehensible $5 words. The authors do not get their point across in a clear and concise manner and the rest of the book suffers because of this. Do not buy this book.
Timely and bold.......2004-04-08
A bold call for bringing people together and transforming society. If you are class conscious and anti-racist read this book, it will be worth the challenge.
THIS BOOK RECALLS ELLISON'S INVISIBLE MAN.......2003-07-05
Because it's the best book about race relations in America since Ellison's masterpiece of fifty years ago. By "race relations" I mean blacks and whites, as Ellison would have meant the words. But The Miner's Canary is about much more, it's about all-minority-cultures and whites in America. And in direct opposition to the color-blind solution the Supreme Court has decided the Constitution requires, the book's authors esteem and celebrate and find strength, including political strength, in our separate cultural identities -- including the separate (non-oppressive) cultural identities of whites.
When I put The Miner's Canary down, I wished I had read the Acknowledgments first, then the chapter "by" Torres. This is a difficult book, it has many authors, and the voice I identify as Ms. Guinier's seems sometimes to address junior high school students and other times to address law professors. So the book has many levels of analysis, and it treats its central topic -- political race -- from many angles. These are not shortcomings, but they add up to a very demanding book.
The book's real-life examples, however, are all wonderful and all one -- compelling and utterly elucidating. And the long illustration of how Greek democracy in action would look if it followed American districting and apportionment rules is simply surpassing wonderful.
Then there's the book's immediacy. The Nobel Prize winning econometrician Robert Fogel has emphasized the roles of technology and religious activism in America's movements for social justice, relegating progressivism to the status of an adjunct to the latter. The Miner's Canary, on the other hand, puts the struggle for social justice squarely within the politics of progressivism. This is not necessarily inconsistent with Fogel (whatever one thinks of the validity of his argument), assuming Fogel's subject is movements in the past before about 1980 when the Big Sleep set in -- which it is -- and assuming The Miner's Canary is describing developments since about 1980, which it is. The book says something new has been happening, and it started being more than unrelated occurrences about twenty five years ago. This new thing Guinier and Torres call political race.
The ambition, originality and insights of this book far outweigh its difficulties due to multiple voices and an "un-ironed out" presentation. I give it five stars.
Why this book fails.......2003-02-07
Guiner and Torres write pedantically with little organization or cohesion. Although the anecdotes were interesting, the authors' arguments reek of indolent emotionalism rather than theory and sound policy.
I realize this is a critical review. I try to be fair to all viewpoints, but this vacuous work warrants these harsh words. Gerald Torres was a visiting professor at Harvard, where his indifferent attitude to his own class and examination live on in infamy. He is not proficient at conveying information.
In short, while Torres and Guiner intended to write a mentally stimulating book, this work is instead mind numbing. Spend your money on another book. For alternate reading on race theory, try "Unequal Treatment: A Study in the Neoclassical Theory of Discrimination" by Lundahl and Wadensjo.
Book Description
Until the present decade, constitutionalism in Eastern Europe was considered to be an outmoded concept of the nineteenth century. Changes in the region, however, have brought back the fundamental question of the need to restrict government power through social self-binding.
This book discusses the mechanisms of such restriction, including different forms of the separation of powers and constitutional review. It relates the theoretical and practical importance of the issue to the present world-wide discontent with majoritarian democracy and the growing disrepute of parliaments. Increasing executive efficiency is, however, a threat to fundamental rights, and the battlecry of efficiency is often only a means to new despotism and inefficiency. A careful re-evaluation of the concept of constitutionalism assists in the search for a useful balance between majoritarianism and rights, and in the avoidance of all forms of public tyranny.
Written in non-technical language and using the most important English, American, French, and German examples of constitutional history, the book also examines East European (in particular, Russian) and Latin American examples, in part to illustrate certain dead-ends in constitutional development. It is intended to be an introduction for all those concerned with liberty.
Average customer rating:
- Interesting, but comon!
- Thought-provoking, but not really scholarly or scientific
- An Authoritarian Trashes the Internet
- A poor solution for a problem that doesn't exist
- A student in the process of reading
|
Republic.com
Cass R. Sunstein
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Digital Law
| Business & Culture
| Computers & Internet
| Subjects
| Books
Culture
| Business & Culture
| Computers & Internet
| Subjects
| Books
Internet
| Home Computing
| Computers & Internet
| Subjects
| Books
| Internet & Education
| Online Searching
| Web Browsers
| Web for Kids
General
| Computers & Internet
| Subjects
| Books
Democracy
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Media Studies
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Democracy
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Technology & Society
| Communication
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Freedom & Security
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Reference
| Law Practice
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Reference
| Law Practice
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Computer Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Reference Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge
-
Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society
-
Why Societies Need Dissent (Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures)
-
Communications Policy and the Public Interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996
-
Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace
ASIN: 0691095892 |
Amazon.com
The center does not hold. The rise of customizable media has mainstream thinkers, used to a near-monopoly on attention, running scared. Legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein makes the case for a more robust information diet from a slightly left of center point of view in Republic.com. Building on the ideas of the Technorealist movement, Sunstein focuses on the increasing volume of extremist voices as people choose to read or listen to only those points of view they already share. Though it seems that he occasionally overstates his case--it seems unlikely that we'll ever really be able to filter every unwanted or unexpected opinion--he does score some solid blows against the current, more or less laissez faire system. His prose is clear and accessible--exactly the kind of reasoned discourse he values and wants to preserve. His proposed program of government-sponsored and mandated public media spaces probably won't rouse many readers to wholehearted endorsement, but the suggestion that we have problems brewing ought to be enough to spur further thought. Since everyone from the American Nazi Party to the Zapatistas has found a stronger voice via the Internet, it's little wonder that we're starting to hear concerned prophets warning of a new Babel. Whether we can--or should--do anything beforehand is an open question; Republic.com makes a strong and pointed case against the status quo. --Rob Lightner
Book Description
See only what you want to see, hear only what you want to hear, read only what you want to read. In cyberspace, we already have the ability to filter out everything but what we wish to see, hear, and read. Tomorrow, our power to filter promises to increase exponentially. With the advent of the Daily Me, you see only the sports highlights that concern your teams, read about only the issues that interest you, encounter in the op-ed pages only the opinions with which you agree. In all of the applause for this remarkable ascendance of personalized information, Cass Sunstein asks the questions, Is it good for democracy? Is it healthy for the republic? What does this mean for freedom of speech?
Republic.com exposes the drawbacks of egocentric Internet use, while showing us how to approach the Internet as responsible citizens, not just concerned consumers. Democracy, Sunstein maintains, depends on shared experiences and requires citizens to be exposed to topics and ideas that they would not have chosen in advance. Newspapers and broadcasters helped create a shared culture, but as their role diminishes and the customization of our communications universe increases, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger of dissolving. In their place will arise only louder and ever more extreme echoes of our own voices, our own opinions.
In evaluating the consequences of new communications technologies for democracy and free speech, Sunstein argues the question is not whether to regulate the Net (it's already regulated), but how; proves that freedom of speech is not an absolute; and underscores the enormous potential of the Internet to promote freedom as well as its potential to promote "cybercascades" of like-minded opinions that foster and enflame hate groups. The book ends by suggesting a range of potential reforms to correct current misconceptions and to improve deliberative democracy and the health of the American republic.
Chat with Cass Sunstein in a Message Forum hosted beginning April 1, 2001.
Download Description
See only what you want to see, hear only what you want to hear, read only what you want to read. In cyberspace, we already have the ability to filter out everything but what we wish to see, hear, and read. Tomorrow, our power to filter promises to increase exponentially. With the advent of the Daily Me, you see only the sports highlights that concern your teams, read about only the issues that interest you, encounter in the op-ed pages only the opinions with which you agree. In all of the applause for this remarkable ascendance of personalized information, Cass Sunstein asks the questions, Is it good for democracy? Is it healthy for the republic? What does this mean for freedom of speech?Republic.com exposes the drawbacks of egocentric Internet use, while showing us how to approach the Internet as responsible citizens, not just concerned consumers. Democracy, Sunstein maintains, depends on shared experiences and requires citizens to be exposed to topics and ideas that they would not have chosen in advance. Newspapers and broadcasters helped create a shared culture, but as their role diminishes and the customization of our communications universe increases, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger of dissolving. In their place will arise only louder and ever more extreme echoes of our own voices, our own opinions. In evaluating the consequences of new communications technologies for democracy and free speech, Sunstein argues the question is not whether to regulate the Net (it's already regulated), but how; proves that freedom of speech is not an absolute; and underscores the enormous potential of the Internet to promote freedom as well as its potential to promote "cybercascades" of like-minded opinions that foster and enflame hate groups. The book ends by suggesting a range of potential reforms to correct current misconceptions and to improve deliberative democracy and the health of the American republic.
Customer Reviews:
Interesting, but comon!.......2007-01-16
Lacking in almost everyway. It was lightly interesting, but not really very entertaining. Doesn't make you want to keep reading. Read only if it is assigned in class, like it was for me.
Thought-provoking, but not really scholarly or scientific.......2005-09-10
This was an interesting read for the first... 50 or 70 pages. Then it seemed like the info was repeated over and over again without new substantiation... kind of like debating with oneself - I lost interest right there... maybe that's because I have no background in law...
However, the main thesis of the book is really thought-provoking for those interested in online communication and polit science. The fact that internet is not "all-good" and not "all-evil" is evident from reading this volume; a few good examples vividly demonstrate it, mostly anecdotally and logically, rather than impirically.
I'd recommend this book, it's fist 50 pages are worth the money!
An Authoritarian Trashes the Internet.......2005-03-22
I give this book three stars not because I agree with it but because I think people need to read this book to find out that there are VERY influential people in this country who have a problem with the free exchange of information and ideas that occurs on the Internet. Sunstein's thesis is that the Internet fragments and personalizes information to such an extent that individuals are increasingly isolated from contrary views; this isolation allows "bad" ideas to go unchecked, thereby promoting extremism and threatening democracy. Sunstein proposes a series of "solutions" which are both unworkable and unnecessary, for his basic premise is flawed.
Contrary to Sunstein, the Internet gives people access to more, not less, information, more opinions, not fewer, and gives people more opportunities - not fewer - to challenge and respond to false or contrary information. Chat rooms and web bloggers provide unprecedented opportunities to engage people of differing opinions, opportunities unavailable in the days when everybody sat in front of the TV and passively accepted the scripted, highly centralized news reporting of a Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather. Sunstein seems unaware that even highly partisan websites ALREADY serve as forums for evaluating and responding to contrary viewpoints, and that bitter disputes occur even among people who share the same general philosophy.
Sunstein explicitly yearns for a return to the days when network news programming would provide a "shared frame of reference" for the public; in other words, he longs for the days when news - presented by people with views similar to his own - could function as propaganda, unquestioned by dissenting voices. Sunstein is thus an authoritarian masking as a libertarian; he wants to control and regulate what you see and hear.
A poor solution for a problem that doesn't exist.......2005-03-22
Repulic.com identifies a problem with the new popularity of the internet. With all of the filtering we are able to do through the use of modern software, we may only ever see the type of content that reaffirms our own biases. According to Sunstein, this will result in people having less and less exposure to opposing viewpoints, and the end result will be the fragmentation of the Internet into splinter groups of like-minded individuals. He then goes on to identify a series of ways that this problem can be fixed, all of which involve increased regulation on the content of the web.
The ideas behind this book were poorly thought out from the start, and indicate that the author doesn't have a firm grip on the reality of the Internet, or even of what social interaction involves. He states that we seek out like-minded people and that we can limit our exposure to information that is disseminated only by these people. While this may be true, no two people are ever entirely like-minded. A discussion group on music will have people from all different political backgrounds, a discussion on politics will have people from nearly any religion, and in a religious discussion every possible genre of music fan will usually be represented. People never discuss strictly one subject in an Internet discussion group, in fact this often poses a problem for moderators who want to keep the discussions on topic. Any internet discussion group will have so many different viewpoints that argument is inevitable.
At this point the author might point out that people will be able to filter this content to display only the information that they agree with, but this argument doesn't take human nature into account. People enjoy arguing and convincing others of the truth of their arguments. A person who reads only conservative discussions will inevitably head to a liberal discussion group and start an argument, and vice versa. Sure, they can be banned, but most discussion groups welcome open debates, and this trend shows every sign of continuing well into the future.
Sunstein then argues his case for the Orwellian regulation of all Internet media with the goal of exposing people to more viewpoints. He tries to draw a parallel to the regulation of other media, but misses several glaring differences. Television, newspapers, radio, and magazines are all distributed by a small group of corporations. This makes it easy for a small group of people to control the media, but it also makes them easy to regulate since there aren't many avenues for content to be distributed to the people. The World Wide Web on the other hand, is the diametric opposite of these types of media. Anyone can create content, anyone can find content, and no one can control content.
Throughout the book, the author beats up straw men, compares apples to oranges and extrapolates oversimplified trends to impossible ends. In the end, he never actually explains how his bad ideas could be realistically implemented, but it would inevitably involve a convoluted mess of government regulation. Read it if you must, but this book is only useful as an example of a poor persuasive argument written by an author with only a rudimentary understanding of how the world operates.
A student in the process of reading.......2003-04-02
I recently began to read sunsteins' book, and I have to say that it raises thought provoking ideas on the direction our society is headed if we continue down our current path. I would have to agree with Howe, in that the Daily Me does not open us up to new ideas or other prospectives and therefore does not allow our democracy room to breath. We are sealing ourselves off from the rest of the world by having everything that we like at our disposal while refusing other information.
Even though some of his ideas may seem far-fetched, it is this type of thinking that allows our minds to see different perspectives and escape the fate that awaits us. Of course, his book is not the only thought-provoker but in this growing field of technology ideas such as sunsteins are interesting and a bit refreshing in the world of information
Average customer rating:
- The scientist, the philosopher and the judge
|
Constitutional Judiciary in a New Democracy: The Hungarian Constitutional Court
Manufacturer: University of Michigan Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Constitutions
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Civil Procedure
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Courts
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Non-US Legal Systems
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Civil Procedure
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Courts
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 0472109650 |
Book Description
Two in-depth essays and a selection of twenty-seven of the most important decisions present the Hungarian Constitutional Court as one of the most important actors of the transition into democracy in a post-communist country.
How was it possible that a new Court established in 1990, in a country just released from forty years of Communist rule, was able to enforce a Constitution, maintain the rule of law, and protect the freedom of its citizens in a way comparable to the U.S. Supreme Court? This new Court has issued decisions on topics ranging from the establishment of democracy and a market economy--privatization, compensation for the nationalization of property, and retroactive criminal legislation--as well as such issues as the constitutionality of capital punishment, abortion, freedom of speech and the media, and the separation of powers.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer provides the foreword and introduces the two essays that begin the book. In the first essay, Georg Brunner explains how the Court was set up and what its procedures are. In the second, Lázszló Sólyom describes systematically the emergence of the case-law of the Court and its jurisprudence on constitutional rights and on the powers and procedures of the other branches of government. The models followed by the Court are outlined, and its contribution to global constitutionalism explored.
Lázszló Sólyom is President of the Constitutional Court of Hungary and Professor of Law, ELTE University of Budapest. Georg Brunner is Professor of Law, University of Cologne, Germany.
Customer Reviews:
The scientist, the philosopher and the judge.......2000-04-01
Laszlo Solyom was one of the founding fathers of the third Hungarian Republic in 1989. After the making of the constitution he left the politics, and became the first president of the hungarian Constitutional Court. As president he built up again the hungarian constitutional tradition that he mixed with the development of the last 50 years. Today, Hungary as a republic has a solid constitutional base. It was mainly the work of Laszlo Solyom, we can say "exegit monumentum aere perennius"
Books:
- American Corrections (with InfoTrac )
- An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (Phoenix Books)
- Antitrust Paradox
- Asset Protection : Concepts and Strategies for Protecting Your Wealth
- Assuming the Risk : The Mavericks, the Lawyers, and the Whistle-Blowers Who Beat Big Tobacco
- Aviation And the Law, 4th ed
- Behind the Wheel Spanish/Complete Illustrated Text/Answer Keys/8 One Hour
- Black Consciousness in South Africa
- Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming
- California Criminal Law and Procedure
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Book of Miracles: The Healing Work of Joao de Deus
- Phantom: Chainfire Trilogy, Part 2
- Fun With Recycling: 50 Great Things for Kids to Make from Junk
- Fundamentals of Beam Physics
- Leonardo's Notebooks
- Medicine at a Glance
- Iguide to Aquarium Set-Up: An Interactive Book
- Toon Art: The Graphic Art of Digital Cartooning
- How to Cut Drawings on Scratchboard
- Electrocommunication in Teleost Fishes: Behavior and Experiments
Administrative Law for Public Managers
Smoking and Politics: Bureaucracy Centered Policymaking (6th Edition) (Real Politics in America Series)
Law and the Administrative Process (with InfoTrac )
Public Administration: An Action Orientation
Public Budgeting Systems, Seventh Edition
