The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down a federal prohibition on independent corporate campaign expenditures, is one of the most controversial opinions in recent memory. Defenders of the First Amendment greeted the ruling with enthusiasm, while advocates of electoral reform recoiled in disbelief. Robert Post offers a new constitutional theory that seeks to reconcile these sharply divided camps.
Post interprets constitutional conflict over campaign finance reform as an argument between those who believe self-government requires democratic participation in the formation of public opinion and those who believe that self-government requires a functioning system of representation. The former emphasize the value of free speech, while the latter emphasize the integrity of the electoral process. Each position has deep roots in American constitutional history. Post argues that both positions aim to nurture self-government, which in contemporary life can flourish only if elections are structured to create public confidence that elected officials are attentive to public opinion. Post spells out the many implications of this simple but profound insight. Critiquing the First Amendment reasoning of the Court in Citizens United, he also shows that the Court did not clearly grasp the constitutional dimensions of corporate speech.
Blending history, constitutional law, and political theory, Citizens Divided explains how a Supreme Court case of far-reaching consequence might have been decided differently, in a manner that would have preserved both First Amendment rights and electoral integrity.
Die Inhaltsangabe kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.
Robert C. Post is Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law and Dean of Yale Law School.
„Über diesen Titel“ kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.
Anbieter: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, USA
Zustand: As New. Unread book in perfect condition. Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers 26523267
Anzahl: Mehr als 20 verfügbar
Anbieter: PBShop.store UK, Fairford, GLOS, Vereinigtes Königreich
PAP. Zustand: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000. Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers WH-9780674970939
Anzahl: 15 verfügbar
Anbieter: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, USA
Zustand: New. Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers 26523267-n
Anzahl: Mehr als 20 verfügbar
Anbieter: Grand Eagle Retail, Bensenville, IL, USA
Paperback. Zustand: new. Paperback. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down a federal prohibition on independent corporate campaign expenditures, is one of the most controversial opinions in recent memory. Defenders of the First Amendment greeted the ruling with enthusiasm, while advocates of electoral reform recoiled in disbelief. Robert Post offers a new constitutional theory that seeks to reconcile these sharply divided camps.Post interprets constitutional conflict over campaign finance reform as an argument between those who believe self-government requires democratic participation in the formation of public opinion and those who believe that self-government requires a functioning system of representation. The former emphasize the value of free speech, while the latter emphasize the integrity of the electoral process. Each position has deep roots in American constitutional history. Post argues that both positions aim to nurture self-government, which in contemporary life can flourish only if elections are structured to create public confidence that elected officials are attentive to public opinion. Post spells out the many implications of this simple but profound insight. Critiquing the First Amendment reasoning of the Court in Citizens United, he also shows that the Court did not clearly grasp the constitutional dimensions of corporate speech.Blending history, constitutional law, and political theory, Citizens Divided explains how a Supreme Court case of far-reaching consequence might have been decided differently, in a manner that would have preserved both First Amendment rights and electoral integrity. First Amendment defenders greeted the Courts Citizens United ruling with enthusiasm, while electoral reformers recoiled in disbelief. Post offers a constitutional theory that seeks to reconcile these sharply divided camps, and he explains how the case might have been decided in a way that would preserve free speech and electoral integrity. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability. Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers 9780674970939
Anbieter: Rarewaves.com USA, London, LONDO, Vereinigtes Königreich
Paperback. Zustand: New. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down a federal prohibition on independent corporate campaign expenditures, is one of the most controversial opinions in recent memory. Defenders of the First Amendment greeted the ruling with enthusiasm, while advocates of electoral reform recoiled in disbelief. Robert C. Post offers a new constitutional theory that seeks to reconcile these sharply divided camps.Post interprets constitutional conflict over campaign finance reform as an argument between those who believe self-government requires democratic participation in the formation of public opinion and those who believe that self-government requires a functioning system of representation. The former emphasize the value of free speech, while the latter emphasize the integrity of the electoral process. Each position has deep roots in American constitutional history. Post argues that both positions aim to nurture self-government, which in contemporary life can flourish only if elections are structured to create public confidence that elected officials are attentive to public opinion. Post spells out the many implications of this simple but profound insight. Critiquing the First Amendment reasoning of the Court in Citizens United, he also shows that the Court did not clearly grasp the constitutional dimensions of corporate speech.Blending history, constitutional law, and political theory, Citizens Divided explains how a Supreme Court case of far-reaching consequence might have been decided differently, in a manner that would have preserved both First Amendment rights and electoral integrity. Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers LU-9780674970939
Anzahl: 10 verfügbar
Anbieter: PBShop.store US, Wood Dale, IL, USA
PAP. Zustand: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000. Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers WH-9780674970939
Anbieter: Brook Bookstore On Demand, Napoli, NA, Italien
Zustand: new. Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers 8be7be220bb88a26e1b672a7b3b70035
Anzahl: 20 verfügbar
Anbieter: Kennys Bookshop and Art Galleries Ltd., Galway, GY, Irland
Zustand: New. Num Pages: 264 pages. BIC Classification: JP. Dimension: 230 x 147 x 19. Weight in Grams: 370. . 2016. Reprint. Paperback. . . . . Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers V9780674970939
Anzahl: 20 verfügbar
Anbieter: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, Vereinigtes Königreich
Zustand: New. Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers 26523267-n
Anzahl: 20 verfügbar
Anbieter: THE SAINT BOOKSTORE, Southport, Vereinigtes Königreich
Paperback / softback. Zustand: New. New copy - Usually dispatched within 4 working days. Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers B9780674970939
Anzahl: 20 verfügbar