The Constitution Besieged offers a compelling reinterpretation of one of the most notorious periods in American constitutional history. In the decades following the Civil War, federal and state judges struck down as unconstitutional a great deal of innovative social and economic legislation. Scholars have traditionally viewed this as the work of a conservative judiciary more interested in promoting laissez-faire economics than in interpreting the Constitution. Howard Gillman challenges this scholarly orthodoxy by showing how these judges were in fact observing a long-standing constitutional prohibition against "class legislation." By reviewing unfamiliar state cases and legal commentary, and by providing fresh interpretations of familiar Supreme Court cases, Gillman uncovers a fascinating - and long forgotten - legal tradition. In this richly textured historical narrative, we see how American judges once worked to insure that legislative power be used only to promote the public good, and not to benefit certain classes or burden their market competitors. Beyond shedding new light on this jurisprudence, Gillman also links it to larger debates in the political system, debates traced to concerns about factional politics expressed by the country's founders and to the Jacksonian assault on special privileges. This tradition came under siege with the intensification of class conflict at the turn of the century, and Gillman carefully documents its demise. He details how industrialization undermined assumptions about the fairness of capitalist social relations, and how this led increasing numbers of people to question the requirement that the state remain neutral in matters of class conflict - thus leaving it to a stalwart judiciary to protect "a Constitution besieged." A major contribution to an understanding of this important period in the history of the Supreme Court, Gillman's work stands as a landmark in revisionist accounts of the "Lochner era." Gillman's study represents the kind of paradigm-shift that will undoubtedly affect a wide range of scholarly activity for some time to come. The broad scope of this work makes it essential reading for those interested in American political thought, the development of the American state, the relationship between law and social change, and contemporary debates about the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and the proper role of the judiciary in American politics.

Translated by Mahmood Farooqui, with notes on the Mutiny Papers and governance in Delhi 1857 by the translator When Delhi lay under siege for five harrowing months in the summer of 1857, the people of the city described the events as ghadar: a time of turbulence. Resources within the besieged city fell dangerously low and locals found the rebelling sepoys presence and the increased levies insufferable. Nonetheless, an extraordinary effort was launched by the government of Bahadur Shah Zafar to fight the British. Thousands of labourers and tonnes of materials were mobilized, funds were gathered, the police monitored food prices and a functioning bureaucracy was vigilantly maintained right until the walled city s fall. Then, as Delhi was transformed by the victorious British, these everyday sacrifices and the efforts of thousands of people to save their country were lost forever. In this groundbreaking work, Mahmood Farooqui presents the first extensive translations into English of the Mutiny Papers documents dating from Delhi s 1857 siege, originally written in Persian and Shikastah Urdu. The translations include such fascinating pieces as the constitution of the Court of Mutineers, letters from soldiers threatening to leave Delhi if they were not paid their salaries, complaints to the police about unruly soldiers, and reports of troublesome courtesans, spies, faqirs, doctors, volunteers and harassed policemen. Shifting focus away from the conventional understanding of the events of 1857, these translations return ordinary and anonymous men and women back into the history of 1857. Besieged offers a view of how the rebel government of Delhi organized the essential requirements of war food and labour, soldiers salaries, arms and ammunition but more than that, this deeply evocative book reveals the hopes, beliefs and failures of a people who lived through the tragic end of an era.

The U.S. Constitution found in school textbooks and under glass in Washington is not the one enforced today by the Supreme Court. In Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy Barnett argues that since the nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government. From the Commerce Clause, to the Necessary and Proper Clause, to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has rendered each of these provisions toothless. In the process, the written Constitution has been lost. Barnett establishes the original meaning of these lost clauses and offers a practical way to restore them to their central role in constraining government: adopting a "presumption of liberty" to give the benefit of the doubt to citizens when laws restrict their rightful exercises of liberty. He also provides a new, realistic and philosophically rigorous theory of constitutional legitimacy that justifies both interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning and, where that meaning is vague or open-ended, construing it so as to better protect the rights retained by the people. As clearly argued as it is insightful and provocative, Restoring the Lost Constitution forcefully disputes the conventional wisdom, posing a powerful challenge to which others must now respond. This updated edition features an afterword with further reflections on individual popular sovereignty, originalist interpretation, judicial engagement, and the gravitational force that original meaning has exerted on the Supreme Court in several recent cases.

An assessment of how the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts is significantly influencing the nation's laws and reinterpreting the Constitution includes in-depth analysis of recent rulings and their implications.

Focuses on America's first attempts at empire-building through a string of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the early part of the 20th century that tried to define the legal and constitutional status of America's island territories: Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines, among others, and reveals how the Court provided the rationalization for the establishment of an American empire.

A strong and lively defense of substantive due process. From reproductive rights to marriage for same-sex couples, many of our basic liberties owe their protection to landmark Supreme Court decisions that have hinged on the doctrine of substantive due process. This doctrine is controversial—a battleground for opposing views around the relationship between law and morality in circumstances of moral pluralism—and is deeply vulnerable today. Against recurring charges that the practice of substantive due process is dangerously indeterminate and irredeemably undemocratic, Constructing Basic Liberties reveals the underlying coherence and structure of substantive due process and defends it as integral to our constitutional democracy. Reviewing the development of the doctrine over the last half-century, James E. Fleming rebuts popular arguments against substantive due process and shows that the Supreme Court has constructed basic liberties through common law constitutional interpretation: reasoning by analogy from one case to the next and making complex normative judgments about what basic liberties are significant for personal self-government. Elaborating key distinctions and tools for interpretation, Fleming makes a powerful case that substantive due process is a worthy practice that is based on the best understanding of our constitutional commitments to protecting ordered liberty and securing the status and benefits of equal citizenship for all.

This book is a compilation of several articles about the Spanish Civil War by different authors each one dealing with a matter.

On the case of Joseph Lochner, a baker in Utica, N.Y., charged in 1901 with violating the New York Bakeshop Act of 1895 by requiring an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week.

Stevenson examines how these changes altered anglophone relations with the major political parties, as well as the role of newer entities such as Alliance Quebec and the Equality Party. He concludes with a look at the future for anglophones in Quebec.

The author retells the entire story of the revolution in political thought that resulted in the republican experiment under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.