The Fallacies of States' Rights
جنوری 2013 · Harvard University Press
ای بک
256
صفحات
reportدرجہ بندیوں اور جائزوں کی تصدیق نہیں کی جاتی ہے مزید جانیں
اس ای بک کے بارے میں
The idea that “states’ rights” restrain national power is riding high in American judicial and popular opinion. Here, Sotirios A. Barber shows how arguments for states’ rights, from the days of John C. Calhoun to the present, have offended common sense, logic, and bedrock constitutional principles.
To begin with, states’ rights federalism cannot possibly win the debate with national federalism owing to the very forum in which the requisite argument must occur—a national one, thanks to the Civil War—and the ordinary rules of practical argumentation. Further, the political consequences of this self-defeating logic can only hasten the loss of American sovereignty to international economic forces. Both philosophical and practical reasons compel us to consider two historical alternatives to states’ rights federalism. In the federalism of John Marshall, the nation’s most renowned jurist, the national government’s duty to ensure security, prosperity, and other legitimate national ends must take precedence over all conflicting exercises of state power. In “process” federalism, the Constitution protects the states by securing their roles in national policy making and other national decisions. Barber opts for Marshall’s federalism, but the contest is close, and his analysis takes the debate into new, fertile territory.
Affirming the fundamental importance of the Preamble, Barber advocates a conception of the Constitution as a charter of positive benefits for the nation. It is not, in his view, a contract among weak separate sovereigns whose primary function is to protect people from the central government, when there are greater dangers to confront.
To begin with, states’ rights federalism cannot possibly win the debate with national federalism owing to the very forum in which the requisite argument must occur—a national one, thanks to the Civil War—and the ordinary rules of practical argumentation. Further, the political consequences of this self-defeating logic can only hasten the loss of American sovereignty to international economic forces. Both philosophical and practical reasons compel us to consider two historical alternatives to states’ rights federalism. In the federalism of John Marshall, the nation’s most renowned jurist, the national government’s duty to ensure security, prosperity, and other legitimate national ends must take precedence over all conflicting exercises of state power. In “process” federalism, the Constitution protects the states by securing their roles in national policy making and other national decisions. Barber opts for Marshall’s federalism, but the contest is close, and his analysis takes the debate into new, fertile territory.
Affirming the fundamental importance of the Preamble, Barber advocates a conception of the Constitution as a charter of positive benefits for the nation. It is not, in his view, a contract among weak separate sovereigns whose primary function is to protect people from the central government, when there are greater dangers to confront.
اس ای بک کی درجہ بندی کریں
ہمیں اپنی رائے سے نوازیں۔
پڑھنے کی معلومات
اسمارٹ فونز اور ٹیب لیٹس
Android اور iPad/iPhone.کیلئے Google Play کتابیں ایپ انسٹال کریں۔ یہ خودکار طور پر آپ کے اکاؤنٹ سے سینک ہو جاتی ہے اور آپ جہاں کہیں بھی ہوں آپ کو آن لائن یا آف لائن پڑھنے دیتی ہے۔
لیپ ٹاپس اور کمپیوٹرز
آپ اپنے کمپیوٹر کے ویب براؤزر کا استعمال کر کے Google Play پر خریدی گئی آڈیو بکس سن سکتے ہیں۔
ای ریڈرز اور دیگر آلات
Kobo ای ریڈرز جیسے ای-انک آلات پر پڑھنے کے لیے، آپ کو ایک فائل ڈاؤن لوڈ کرنے اور اسے اپنے آلے پر منتقل کرنے کی ضرورت ہوگی۔ فائلز تعاون یافتہ ای ریڈرز کو منتقل کرنے کے لیے تفصیلی ہیلپ سینٹر کی ہدایات کی پیروی کریں۔
