Über uns

À propos de nous

Nachhaltigkeit

Durabilité

Open Access

Karriere

Carrière

Datenschutz

Protection des données

Impressum

Mentions légales

Zahlung und Lieferung

Paiement et livraison

LEXIA

LEXIA Arbeitsrecht

Was ist LEXIA?

C'est quoi LEXIA ?

LEXIA Familienrecht

Zeitschriften

Revues

recht

Pflegerecht

ZBJV

forumpoenale

ZStrR

Anwaltsrevue

Revue de l'avocat

RSAS

FamPra.ch

ASYL

Life Science Recht

BlAR

Sachbuch

Livres spécialisés

LOKI

Semaphor

Fokusthemen

Focus

Thema

Recht studieren

Arbeitsrecht

Droit du travail

Studium

Études

Familienrecht

Droit de la famille

Sozialversicherungsrecht

Droit des assurances sociales

Strafrecht

Droit pénal

Publikationen

Publications

Literatur

Onlinemodule LEXIA

Modules en ligne LEXIA

Bücher

Livres

Buchreihen

Collections

Datenbanken

recht.ch

Studienliteratur

Littérature pour les études

Services

Dienstleistungen für

Corporate Books

Publishing Lösungen

Aktuelles

Geschäftskunden

Professionnels

Corporate Publishing

Content solutions

Buchhandlungen

Librairies

Veranstaltungen

Événements

Presse

Dozierende

Enseignants

Studierende

Étudiants

Inserierende

Annonceurs

Newsletter

Blog

Autorinnen/Autoren

Auteurs

Unsere Schreibenden

Hilfe

Unsere Autorinnen und Autoren

Liste

Autorenlounge

Espace des auteurs

Bei uns publizieren

Publier chez nous

Autorenstimmen

Témoignages

Verlag

Éditions

Themen

Mehr wissen

Mitarbeitende

Collaborateurs

Geschichte

Histoire

Vision und Mission

Vision et mission

Unser Magazin

Notre magazine

Unternehmenskultur

Culture d'entreprise

Partner

Partenaires

Kontakt

Contact

Shop

Schweizer Recht

Ausländisches Recht

Über unseren Shop

Neuerscheinungen

Nouveautés

Unsere Funktionen

Nos fonctions

Vorankündigungen

À paraître

Nach Rechtsgebiet

Par domaine juridique

Kommentare

Commentaires

Gesamtkatalog

Catalogue complet

Dunkley J: Know Your Rights

Know Your Rights

Always plead the 5th but you must say it. Because justice is blind

Contemporary Debates

This volume explores the many ways in which politics shapes the allegedly nonpartisan judicial system in America, ranging from how judges are selected to the bench to how they rule when they get there. 

Each title in the Contemporary Debates series examines the veracity of controversial claims or beliefs surrounding a major political/cultural issue in the United States. Each book gives readers a clear and unbiased understanding of current high-interest issues by informing them about falsehoods, half-truths, and misconceptions-and confirming the factual validity of other assertions-that have gained traction in America's cultural and political discourse.

This volume in the series provides a deeply researched and even-handed account of the relationship between America's judicial branch-which is supposed to view law through a nonpartisan lens-and the sometimes poisonous partisanship that is such a notorious factor in the nation's other two branches of government. Is political combat over judicial nominations worse than ever before? What impact is the politicization of the courts having on public faith in the legitimacy of the courts and our wider political system? Was former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day right when she asserted that "judicial independence is a bedrock principle of our court system, and we are losing it"? This work will provide insights into all these questions and more.

Explore the many ways in which politics shapes the allegedly nonpartisan judicial system in America, revealing that political factors increasingly determine who wears the judicial robes.

Examining the Facts

Political Control of America's Courts

"We all feel unfairness deeply when treated in rash ways. We expect and the law requires that government officials take fairness seriously, giving notice and an opportunity to be heard before taking our rights away. That is why the U.S. Constitution commands, twice, that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Yet in overheated debates, people argue that others do not deserve any presumption of innocence. In courtrooms and colleges, police stations and jails, restaurants and libraries, print and online, the democratic value of due process is up for grabs"--

Why Fairness Matters in a Polarized World

Defending Due Process

Richard Primus challenges the prevailing view that Congress is constrained to exercise only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. Analyzing constitutional text and history, as well as the structure of US federalism, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule the listed powers in, not to rule other powers out.

Enumeration and Federal Power

The Oldest Constitutional Question

Document from the year 2017 in the subject Law - Civil / Private / Trade / Anti Trust Law / Business Law, , language: English, abstract: The Arbitration Law of India (which possesss huge potential to become a global hub for Arbitration) has undergone a change after the recent Amendments of 2015. This book contains an analysis of Indian law of Arbitration, id est The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 alongwith recent amendments of 2015.The book contains section by section in-depth analysis with help of recent relevant judicial pronouncements. The book also contains a separate chapter on recent landmark judicial pronouncements by Indian Courts which has led to improving image of India from anti Arbitration to Pro-Arbitration state.

Vikrant Yadav

The 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act with Amendments of 2015

A groundbreaking challenge to a core principle of constitutional law, arguing that congressional action is not limited by the legislative branch's textually enumerated powers. Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers, meaning that Congress can do what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to and nothing more. Yet Richard Primus contends that this longstanding orthodoxy--allegedly required by the text of the Constitution, the Framers' vision, and the logic of federalism--is fundamentally flawed. Through careful analysis of legal text and history, and of the structure of American federalism, The Oldest Constitutional Question argues for broad congressional authority. In particular, Primus shows that the primary function of enumeration is to rule listed powers in, not to rule other powers out. In practice, enumeration does little to limit Congress. But most constitutional lawyers--including many Supreme Court justices--think this means something has gone wrong, such that the courts must aggressively strike down federal laws. Primus's meticulous examination explodes the prevailing view. The constitutional system does place limits on Congress, and crucially so, but the enumeration of powers is not, and never has been, a sensible means for creating and enforcing those limits.

A collection of essays on politics and judicial power in Ireland, featuring contributions from scholars, judges and legal practitioners.

A collection of essays on politics and judicial power in Ireland, featuring contributions from scholars, judges and legal practitioners. -- .

Judges, Politics and the Irish Constitution

Discover the Power of Your Rights: A Journey Through the U.S. Constitution

Imagine unlocking the secrets of the U.S. Constitution, a document that has shaped the very fabric of American freedom and governance. "Your Gov't Your Rights; Simplifying the U S Constitution" offers you a unique opportunity to embark on a journey that not only demystifies this foundational document but also empowers you to embrace your rights and responsibilities as a citizen.

Through an engaging exploration from the historical context to the modern day relevance of each amendment, this book serves as a comprehensive guide to understanding how the U.S. Constitution continues to impact our lives. Why Understanding Your Rights Matters isn't just a chapter; it's a call to action-a reminder that your voice, grounded in the knowledge of your rights, holds incredible power.

Dive deep into the Bill of Rights in Chapter 2, where the freedoms of speech, worship, and privacy come alive through clear explanations and contemporary examples. Understand the critical balance between safety and liberty as you explore the heated debates surrounding the Second Amendment. Furthermore, Chapter 4: Understanding the Amendments Through Modern Issues, illuminates how today's digital age and societal shifts challenge and redefine our freedoms.

But it doesn't stop at understanding. How to Exercise Your Rights in Chapter 5 transforms knowledge into action, guiding you through engaging in civic duties, protecting your rights, and influencing governance at local levels. You're not just learning about the Constitution-you're preparing to be a proactive participant in the ongoing story of American democracy.

The final chapters, including The Role of the Supreme Court in Interpreting the Constitution and Future Amendments: What's Next?, offer a forward-looking perspective on how our understanding of this living document continues to evolve. Plus, with a dedicated section answering your most pressing questions and real-life case studies, you'll see the Constitution in action, making its importance in daily life undeniably clear.

With this book as your guide, the Constitution is no longer a distant document of the past, but a vibrant, living framework that empowers you, protects you, and invites you to shape the future. Embrace your role in this living constitution and discover the power of your rights today.

Your Gov't Your Rights; Simplifying the U S Constitution

This volume brings together academics and judges to consider ideas and arguments flowing from the often complex relationships between law and politics, adjudication and policy-making, and the judicial and political branches of government. 

 Contributors explore numerous themes, including the nature and extent of judicial power, the European Court of Human Rights decision in O'Keeffe v Ireland, the process of appointing judges and judicial representation, judicial power and political processes. Contrasting judicial and academic perspectives are provided on the role of the European Court of Human Rights and the nature of exhausting domestic remedies, including a contribution from the late Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman. The role of specific judges, social and political disputes and case law are examined and socio-economic rights, the rule of law and electoral processes are all addressed.

This collective work provides a chronological and up-to-date reconstruction of the three-round debate between Robert Alexy and Ralf Poscher. The debate represents the German development of an enduring jurisprudential controversy over the concept and adjudicatory role of legal principles, classically addressed by HLA Hart and Ronald Dworkin. Alexy's principles theory, which has initially defined 'legal principles' as optimisation requirements, currently argues that they express an 'ideal ought'. Poscher's critique challenges the soundness of Alexy's principles theory by questioning its ontological and epistemological commitments. As legal principles are directly related to constitutional rights, the Alexy-Poscher debate has significant implications for constitutional adjudication. For instance, proportionality analysis - which incorporates a highly controversial balancing test - and the legitimate boundaries of judicial power, hinge on the debate's two opposing views. Yet despite the centrality and pervasiveness of this topic, German contributions to the theoretical and practical impact of legal principles remain generally overlooked by English-speaking scholars. Concluding with David Duarte's critical and meticulous assessment of the debate, this collection bridges that important scholarly gap. Whether or not conversant in the debate on legal principles, legal researchers and advanced law students with interdisciplinary interests in jurisprudence and constitutional law will find in this book a timely and distinctive introduction to leading developments in German legal thinking.

This collective work provides a chronological and up-to-date reconstruction of the three-round debate between Robert Alexy and Ralf Poscher. The debate represents the German development of an enduring jurisprudential controversy over the concept and adjudicatory role of legal principles, classically addressed by HLA Hart and Ronald Dworkin. Alexy’s principles theory, which has initially defined ‘legal principles’ as optimisation requirements, currently argues that they express an ‘ideal ought’. Poscher’s critique challenges the soundness of Alexy’s principles theory by questioning its ontological and epistemological commitments. As legal principles are directly related to constitutional rights, the Alexy-Poscher debate has significant implications for constitutional adjudication. For instance, canons of constitutional interpretation and construction—especially proportionality and balancing tests—and the limits to judicial powers hinge on these two opposing views. Yet despite the centrality and pervasiveness of this topic, German contributions to the theoretical and practical impact of legal principles remain generally overlooked by English-speaking scholars. Concluded with David Duarte’s critical and meticulous assessment of the debate, this collection bridges that important scholarly gap. Whether or not conversant in the debate on legal principles, legal researchers and advanced law students with interdisciplinary interests in jurisprudence and constitutional law will find in this book a timely and distinctive introduction to leading developments in German legal thinking.

The Alexy-Poscher Debate on Legal Principles

<div>First published to mark the fifty-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed the right to legal counsel for all criminal defendants, Chasing Gideon is "a hugely important book" (New York Law Journal) that gives us a visceral, unforgettable experience of our systemic failure to fulfill this basic constitutional right. Written in the tradition of Gideon's Trumpet, by the late Anthony Lewis, this is "a book of nightmares," as Leonard Pitts wrote in the Miami Herald, because it shows that the "'justice system' too often produces the opposite of what its name suggests, particularly for its most vulnerable constituents." 
 Following its publication, Chasing Gideon, which ACLU director Anthony Romero said "illustrates the scope and seriousness of the indigent defense crisis," became an integral part of a growing national conversation about how to reform indigent defense in America, coordinated with an HBO documentary and a website to promote the book and the movie. The effort spread news about Chasing Gideon directly to public defenders offices nationwide and drove a national conversation about what Eric Holder called the "shameful state of affairs" of indigent defense (in the Washington Post).</div>

Know Your Rights

Weitere Titel zum Thema