Author: Sarah Nason
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
Release Date: 2016-12-01
This book offers a new interpretation of judicial review in England and Wales as being concerned with the advancement of justice and good governance, as opposed to being concerned primarily with ultra vires or common law constitutionalism. It is developed both from examining the functions and values that ought to be served by judicial review, and from analysis of empirical 'social' facts about judicial review primarily as experienced in the Administrative Court. Based on ground-up case law analysis it constructs a new taxonomy on the grounds of judicial review: mistake, procedural impropriety, ordinary common law statutory interpretation, discretionary impropriety, relevant/irrelevant considerations, breach of an ECHR protected right or equality duty, and constitutional allocation of powers, constitutional rights, or other complex constitutional principles. It explains each of these grounds, what academic and judicial support there might be for them outside case law analysis, and their similarities and differences when viewed against popular existing taxonomies. It concludes that Administrative Court judges are engaged in ordinary common law statutory interpretation in approximately half of all cases, and that where discretionary judgement is involved on the part of the initial decision-maker, judges do indeed consider their task to be one of determining whether the challenged decision was justified by reasoning of adequate quality. It finds that judges apply ordinary common law principles of statutory interpretation with historical pedigrees, including assessing the initial decision-maker's reasoning with reference to statutory purpose, and sifting relevant from irrelevant considerations, including moral considerations. The result is a ground-breaking reassessment of the grounds of judicial review in England and Wales and the practice of the Administrative Court.
Author: Mark Elliott
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
Release Date: 2018-04-19
This major collection contains selected papers from the second Public Law Conference, an international conference hosted by the University of Cambridge in September 2016. The collection includes contributions by leading academics and judges from across the common law world, including senior judges from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK. The contributions engage with the theme of unity (and disunity) from a number of perspectives, offering a rich panoply of insights into public law which significantly carry forward public law thinking across common law jurisdictions, setting the agenda for future research and legal development. Part 1 of the volume contains chapters which offer doctrinal and theoretical perspectives. Some chapters seek to articulate a unifying framework for understanding public law, while others seek to demonstrate the plurality of public law through the method of legal taxonomy. A number of chapters analyse whether different fields such as human rights and administrative law are merging, with others considering specific unifying themes or concepts in public law. The chapters in Part 2 offer comparative perspectives, charting and analysing convergence and divergence across common law systems. Specific topics include standing, proportionality, human rights, remedies, use of foreign precedents, legal transplants, and disunity and unity among subnational jurisdictions. The collection will be of great interest to those working in public law.
Author: Sarah Nason
Publisher: University of Wales Press
Release Date: 2017-09-15
This book offers a unique understanding of what administrative justice means in Wales and for Wales, whilst also providing an expert and timely analysis of comparative developments in law and administration. It includes critical analysis of distinctly Welsh administrative laws and redress measures, whilst examining contemporary administrative justice issues across a range of common and civil law, European and international jurisdictions. Key issues include the roles of commissioners, administrative courts, tribunals and ombudsmen in devolved and federal nations, and evolving relationships between citizens and the state – especially in the context of localisation and austerity – and will be of interest to legal and public administration professionals at home and internationally.
Author: Paul W. Kahn
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Release Date: 2000-12-15
Drawing on philosophers from Plato to Foucault and cultural anthropologists and historians such as Clifford Geertz and Perry Miller, Kahn outlines the conceptual tools necessary for such an inquiry. He analyzes the concepts of time, space, citizen, judge, sovereignty, and theory within the culture of law's rule and goes on to consider the methodological problems entailed in stripping the study of law of its reformist ambitions.
Author: Michael Sullivan
Publisher: Indiana University Press
Release Date: 2007-06-14
In Legal Pragmatism, Michael Sullivan looks closely at the place of the individual and community in democratic society. After mapping out a brief history of American legal thinking regarding rights, from communitarianism to liberalism, Sullivan gives a rich and nuanced account of how pragmatism worked to resolve conflicts of self-interest and community well-being. Sullivan's view of pragmatism provides a comprehensive framework for understanding democracy, as well as issues such as health care, education, gay marriage, and illegal immigration that will determine its character in the future. Legal Pragmatism is a bold, carefully argued book that presents a unique understanding of contemporary society, law, and politics.
Author: Robert Burt
Publisher: Harvard University Press
Release Date: 1992
Lincoln was not alone in believing that the Constitution could be interpreted by any of the three branches of the government. Today, however, the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional matters is widely accepted. But as Robert Burt shows in his provocative new book, this was not always the case, nor should it be. In a remarkably innovative reconstruction of constitutional history, Burt traces the controversy over judicial supremacy back to the founding fathers, with Madison and Hamilton as the principal antagonists. The conflicting views these founders espoused--equal interpretive powers among the federal branches on one hand and judicial supremacy on the other--remain plausible readings of "original intent" and so continue to present us with a choice. Drawing extensively on Lincoln's conception of political equality, Burt argues convincingly that judicial supremacy and majority rule are both inconsistent with the egalitarian democratic ideal. The proper task of the judiciary, he contends--as epitomized in Brown v. Board of Education--is to actively protect minorities against "enslaving" legislative defeats while, at the same time, to refrain from awarding conclusive "victory" to these minorities against their adversaries. From this premise, Burt goes on to examine key decisions such as Roe v. Wade, U.S. v. Nixon, and the death penalty cases, all of which demonstrate how the Court has fallen away from egalitarian jurisprudence and returned to an essentially authoritarian conception of its role. With an eye to the urgent issues at stake in these cases, Burt identifies the alternative results that an egalitarian conception of judicial authority would dictate. Thefirst fully articulated presentation of the Constitution as a communally interpreted document in which the Supreme Court plays an important, but not predominant, role, The Constitution in Conflict has dramatic implications for both the theory and the practice of constitutional law
Author: Lisa M Austin
Publisher: OUP Oxford
Release Date: 2014-12-18
The rule of law is widely perceived to be a public law doctrine, concerned with the way in which governmental authority conforms to the dictates of law. The goal of this book is to challenge this presumption. The chapters in this volume all consider the idea that the rule of law concerns the nature of law generally and the conditions under which any relationship - that among citizens as well as that between citizens and the state - becomes subject to law. Addressing two major questions, they ask if our understanding of the rule of law is enriched by considering how and to what degree it is expressed or realized in private law, and whether our understanding of the private law is enriched by adding the principles of the rule of law to the traditional list of core private law concepts. Bringing together leading philosophers of private and public law, this volume examines key questions in a little-explored field, and will be essential reading for all those interested in the rule of law and in private law theory.
Author: Robin West
Publisher: Duke University Press
Release Date: 1994
Genre: Political Science
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law as well as immunity from laws that deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In Progressive Constitutionalism, Robin West develops an interpretation of this amendment that contrasts with the views, conservative and liberal, of the Rehnquist, Burger, and Warren Courts, and with the radical "antisubordinationist" account provided by the critical legal studies movement and many prominent feminist and critical race theorists. Her interpretation consists of a "substantive" argument regarding the Amendment's core meaning, and a jurisprudential argument regarding the role of the courts and Congress in fulfilling the Amendment's progressive promise. West shows how the "equal protection" clause, far from insulating the private spheres of culture, market, and home life, as is commonly held, directly targets abuses of power within those spheres. She develops a number of arguments for the modern relevance of this understanding, from the failure of the state to provide equal protection against private domestic violence, permitting a "private sovereignty" of patriarchal power within the home, to the the state's failure to provide equal protection against material deprivation, allowing "private sovereignty" between economically privileged and desperate people in private markets. West's argument extends to the "liberty" prong of the due process clause, seen here as a protection of the positive, not negative, liberty of citizens, covering rights in such typically controversial areas as welfare, education, and domestic safety. This interpretation recasts a number of contemporary constitutional issues, such as affirmative action and hate speech, and points to very different problems—notably private, unchecked criminal violence and extreme economic deprivation—as the central constitutional dilemmas of our day. Progressive Constitutionalism urges a substantive, institutional, and jurisprudential reorientation of our understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, one that would necessarily be pursued through Congressional rather than judicial channels. In doing so, with attention to history and both feminist and critical race scholarship, it should reinvigorate our politics and our constitutional conversations—and, perhaps, point us toward a more just society.
Author: Peter Winthrop Bardaglio
Publisher: Univ of North Carolina Pr
Release Date: 1995
Based on literary and legal sources, this study reveals how legal contests involving women, children, African-Americans, and the poor of the 19th-century South led to a rethinking of families, sexuality, and the social order.
Author: Franklin Strier
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Release Date: 1996-05-15
In this lively and persuasive critique, Franklin Strier doesn't simply describe problems with the American trial system; he proposes reforms. He offers a detailed blueprint of how to improve our basic adversarial system while blunting its excesses and inequities. Strier points out that the jury system was originally intended to diffuse the power of the government, but criticizes the method by which jurors are selected, patronized, and manipulated. Among his suggestions: eliminate peremptory challenges, give jurors the authority, and judges the responsibility, to ask questions of witnesses, and use neutral expert witnesses.