"The inside story of the Supreme Court decisions that brought true democracy to the United States Today, Earl Warren is recalled as the chief justice of a Supreme Court that introduced school desegregation and other dramatic changes to American society. In retirement, however, Warren argued that his court's greatest accomplishment was establishing the principle of "one person, one vote" in state legislative and congressional redistricting. Malapportionment, Warren recognized, subverted the will of the majority, privileging rural voters, and often business interests and whites, over others. In declaring nearly all state legislatures unconstitutional, the court oversaw a revolution that transformed the exercise of political power in the United States. On Democracy's Doorstep tells the story of this crucial--and neglected--episode. J. Douglas Smith follows lawyers, activists, and Justice Department officials as they approach the court. We see Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy pushing for radical change and idealistic lawyers in Alabama bravely defying their peers. We then watch as the justices edge toward their momentous decision. The Washington Post called the result a step "toward establishing democracy in the United States." But not everyone agreed; Smith shows that business lobbies and their political allies attempted to overturn the court by calling the first Constitutional Convention since the 1780s. Thirty-three states ratified their petition--just one short of the two-thirds required"--

Electronic version of the book in PDF format with weblinks to the various sites.

“A Washington insider draws on decades of experience to deliver a blistering critique of the state of American government” (Kirkus Reviews) in an authoritative scrutiny of the forces that run our society and a call to fix our democracy before it’s too late. If you’ve been watching the news and worrying that our democracy no longer works, this book, “a cri de coeur from one of our wisest Americans” (Michael Beschloss, Presidential Historian), will help you understand why you’re right. There is colossal concentration of power in the Presidency. Congress is crippled by partisanship and hostage to special interest money. The Supreme Court and many lower federal courts are riven by politics. Add politically fractured and fragile media, feckless campaign finance laws, rampant income and education inequality, and multicultural divisions, and it’s no wonder our leaders can’t agree on anything or muster a solid majority of Americans behind them. With decades at the top in government, law, and business, Joseph A. Califano, Jr. has the capacity to be party-neutral in his evaluation and the perspective to see the big picture of our democracy. Using revealing anecdotes featuring every modern president and actions of both parties, he makes the urgent case that while we do not need to agree on all aspects of politics, we do need to trust each other and be worthy of that trust. He shows how, as engaged citizens, we can bring back systems of government that promote fairness and protect our freedom. “It’s hard to argue with [Califano’s] analysis” (The New York Times Book Review) that the longer we wait to fix these problems, the more dangerous our situation will become.

Reformulating a problem of both constitutionalism and liberalism discussed in the works of Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Hannah Arendt, and Alexis de Tocqueville, the book examines one generally overlooked manifestation of constitutionalism: the role of the courts in shaping democratic politics and the inter-relationship between citizens and state. Drawing on constitutional history, law, and political theory, David Miles argues that constitutionalism cannot be seen merely as an institutional mechanism to limit government, as it also has a crucial civic dimension upon which the liberal state depends. Utilising the works of Böckenförde, Arendt, and Tocqueville, constitutionalism is conceived in the book as part of a broader system of communal norms which sustains representative democracy and liberalism. Through an analysis of judicial interventions in the electoral processes of the United States and Germany, Miles explores the role of civil society actors in transforming constitutionalism through legal challenges to oligarchical or exclusionary practices. He assesses how, in adjudicating these cases, the US Supreme Court and the German Constitutional Court have mediated the tension between threats to stability and the imperative of democratic renewal. Democracy, the Courts, and the Liberal State will be of interest to scholars, students, and practitioners interested in comparative politics, political theory, and constitutional law and history.

This paper tests the theoretical framework developed by North, Wallis and Weingast (2009) on the transition from closed to open access societies. They posit that societies need to go through three doorsteps: (i) the establishment of rule of law among elites; (ii) the adoption of perpetually existing organizations; and (iii) the political control of the military. We identify indicators reflecting these doorsteps and graphically test the correlation between them and a set of political and economic variables. Finally, through Identification through Heteroskedasticity we test these relationships econometrically. The paper broadly confirms the logic behind the doorsteps as necessary steps in the transition to open access societies. The doorsteps influence economic and political processes, as well as each other, with varying intensity. We also identify income inequality as a potentially important force leading to social change.

An incisive study that shows how Republicans transformed the US House of Representatives into a consistent GOP stronghold—with or without a majority. Long-term Democratic dominance in the US House of Representatives gave way to a Republican electoral advantage and frequently held majority following the GOP takeover in 1994. Republicans haven’t always held the majority in recent decades, but nationalization, partisan realignment, and the gerrymandering of House seats have contributed to a political climate in which they've had an edge more often than not for nearly thirty years. The Long Red Thread examines each House election cycle from 1964 to 2020, surveying academic and journalistic literature to identify key trends and takeaways from more than a half-century of US House election results in order to predict what Americans can expect to see in the future.

Between 1956 and 1967, justice was for sale in Oklahoma’s highest court and Supreme Court decisions went to the highest bidder. One lawyer, O. A. Cargill, grew rich peddling influence with the justices; a shady company, Selected Investments, protected its illegal practices with bribes; and Supreme Court justice N. S. Corn, one of two justices who would ultimately serve time in prison, cheated his partners in crime and stashed vast amounts of ill-gotten cash in a locker at his golf course. Author Lee Card, himself a former judge, describes a system infected with favoritism and partisanship in which party loyalty trumped fairness and a shaky payment structure built on commissions invited exploitation. From petty corruption at the lowest level of the trial bench to large-scale bribery among Supreme Court justices, Card follows the developing scandal, introducing the bit players and worst offenders, the federal prosecutors who exposed the scheme, and the politicians who persuaded skeptical Oklahoma voters to adopt constitutional reforms. On one level,The Best Courts Money Could Buy is a compelling story of true crime and punishment set in the capitol of an agricultural, oil-producing, conservative state. But on a deeper level, the book is a cautionary tale of political corruption—and the politics of restoring integrity, accountability, and honor to a broken system.

On cover, the word "right" has an x drawn over the letter "r" with the letter "f" above it.

The Harvard Law Review, April 2015, is offered in a digital edition. Contents include the annual Developments in the Law survey of a particular area of legal concern; this year's topic is Policing. Other contents include: • Article, "Consent Procedures and American Federalism," by Bridget Fahey • Essay, "Anticipatory Remedies for Takings," by Thomas W. Merrill • Book Review, "How a 'Lawless' China Made Modern America: An Epic Told in Orientalism," by Carol G.S. Tan Specific subjects studied in Developments in the Law—Policing are: Policing and Profit, Policing Students, Policing Immigrant Communities, and Considering Police Body Cameras. In addition, the issue features student commentary on Recent Cases, including such subjects as: the business judgment rule and mergers; whistleblowing under Dodd-Frank and extraterritoriality; senate redistricting in New York; postmortem rights of publicity; standing and overlap of various tests used; informing one who pleads No Contest of collateral consequences; exceptions to New York marriage license requirement for out-of-state marriages; exclusionary rule for violations of Posse Comitatus restrictions; and extending federal forced labor statute to conduct criminalized under state law. Finally, the issue features several summaries of Recent Publications. The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2500 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This issue of the Review is Apr. 2015, the 6th issue of academic year 2014-2015 (Volume 128). The digital edition features active Contents, linked notes, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting.

The Supreme Court has been at the center of great upheavals in American democracy across the last seventy years. From the end of Jim Crow to the rise of wealth-dominated national campaigns, the Court has battled over if democracy is an egalitarian collaboration to serve the good of all citizens, or a competitive struggle by private interests. In The Law of Freedom, Jacob Eisler questions why the Court has the moral authority to shape democracy at all. Analyzing leading cases through the lens of philosophy and social science, Eisler demonstrates how the soul of election law is a battle between two philosophical understandings of democratic freedom and popular self-rule. This remarkable book reveals that the Court's battle over democracy has shaped how Americans rule themselves, marking election law as the most dramatic judicial intervention in constitutional history.