Posted on

Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy by Professor Bruce Ackerman, Bruce Ackerman

By Professor Bruce Ackerman, Bruce Ackerman

The excellent Court's intervention within the 2000 election will form American legislations and democracy lengthy after George W. Bush has left the White apartment. This very important ebook brings jointly a huge variety of preeminent felony students who deal with the bigger questions raised through the ideally suited Court's activities. Did the Court's determination violate the guideline of legislations? Did it inaugurate an period of super-politicized jurisprudence? How should still Bush v. Gore switch the phrases of discussion over the subsequent around of ideal court docket appointments? The contributors-Bruce Ackerman, Jack Balkin, Guido Calabresi, Steven Calabresi, Owen Fiss, Charles Fried, Robert submit, Margaret Jane Radin, Jeffrey Rosen, Jed Rubenfeld, Cass Sunstein, Laurence Tribe, and Mark Tushnet-represent a extensive political spectrum. Their reactions to the case are assorted and extraordinary, full of gleaming argument and lively debate. this can be a must-read e-book for considerate americans all over.

Show description

Read or Download Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy PDF

Similar constitutional law books

Constitutional Faith

This booklet examines the "constitutional faith" that has, seeing that 1788, been a primary element of American "civil faith. " by means of taking heavily the parallel among wholehearted attractiveness of the structure and spiritual religion, Sanford Levinson opens up a bunch of interesting questions on what it skill to be American.

European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights

For you to be potent, foreign tribunals will be perceived as valid adjudicators. eu Consensus and the Legitimacy of the ecu court docket of Human Rights presents in-depth analyses on no matter if ecu consensus is able to bettering the legitimacy of the ecu court docket of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Constitutionalism, Identity, Difference, and Legitimacy: Theoretical Perspectives

Curiosity in constitutionalism and within the dating between constitutions, nationwide identification, and ethnic, spiritual, and cultural range has soared because the cave in of socialist regimes in japanese Europe and the previous Soviet Union. considering the fact that global warfare II there has additionally been a proliferation of recent constitutions that fluctuate in numerous crucial respects from the yankee structure.

Extreme Speech and Democracy

Dedication to loose speech is a basic principle of all liberal democracies. despite the fact that, democracies can range considerably while addressing the constitutionality of legislation regulating sure sorts of speech. within the usa, for example, the dedication to loose speech lower than the 1st modification has been held through the ideally suited courtroom to guard the general public expression of the main noxious racist ideology and for this reason to render unconstitutional even slim regulations on hate speech.

Additional info for Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy

Sample text

Bush v. Gore is a di√erent kind of case. No one cared in any large, prospective sense about whether Florida had or hadn’t set a December 12 deadline for its election contest. All that turned on that question was—the presidency of the United States. Thus when the majority made up this deadline on completely indefensible grounds, one does not go looking for post hoc rationalizations to explain why Florida really had made December 12 its deadline, even if the Court didn’t itself give very good reasons.

There is an obvious difference between the regime the Court struck down and the rational universe of diverse and divergent election procedures. True it is that the methods of tabulation in our country vary from state to state and even from precinct to precinct. ∞≠ The Florida court by contrast set in motion a system of disparities after the election had been held, when it was known just what depended on every subjective judgment, every change of standard from one moment to the next in counting the ballots.

Gore argue that all the problems in the majority opinion can be avoided, and the Court’s decision placed on much firmer grounds, by adopting the reasoning o√ered in the concurrence. Post hoc rationalization is standard operating procedure in legal thought. Sometimes the reasoning in a concurrence is belatedly recognized as superior to that in the majority opinion. But in Bush v. Gore, there was a good reason why the concurring opinion did not command a majority. In the majority opinion, at least the substantive constitutional holding—the finding of an equal protection violation— was within the ambit of legal defensibility.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.52 of 5 – based on 29 votes