Abner S. Greene's Books

Against Obligation

By: Abner Greene

Write a review Read reviews Take a Quiz Solve Book Puzzle

Do citizens of a nation such as the United States have a moral duty to obey the law? Do officials, when interpreting the Constitution, have an obligation to follow what that text meant when ratified? To follow precedent? To follow what the Supreme Court today says the Constitution means?These are questions of political obligation (for citizens) and interpretive obligation (for anyone interpreting the Constitution, often officials). Abner Greene argues that such obligations do not exist. Although citizens should obey some laws entirely, and other laws in some instances, no one has put forth a successful argument that citizens should obey all laws all the time. Greene's case is not only "against" obligation. It is also "for" an approach he calls "permeable sovereignty": all of our norms are on equal footing with the state's laws. Accordingly, the state should accommodate religious, philosophical, family, or tribal norms whenever possible. Greene shows that questions of interpretive obligation share many qualities with those of political obligation. In rejecting the view that constitutional interpreters must follow either prior or higher sources of constitutional meaning, Greene confronts and turns aside arguments similar to those offered for a moral duty of citizens to obey the law.

Average ratings

N/A

Write a review

Solve jigsaw puzzle

Age

Page Count

346

Publisher

Harvard University Press

Published Date

ISBN 10

0674065174

ISBN 13

9780674065178

Against Obligation

The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy

By: Abner S. Greene

Write a review Read reviews Take a Quiz Solve Book Puzzle

Against Obligation

The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy

By: Abner S. Greene

Do citizens of a nation such as the United States have a moral duty to obey the law? Do officials, when interpreting the Constitution, have an obligation to follow what that text meant when ratified? To follow precedent? To follow what the Supreme Court today says the Constitution means? These are questions of political obligation (for citizens) and interpretive obligation (for anyone interpreting the Constitution, often officials). Abner Greene argues that such obligations do not exist. Although citizens should obey some laws entirely, and other laws in some instances, no one has put forth a successful argument that citizens should obey all laws all the time. Greene’s case is not only “against” obligation. It is also “for” an approach he calls “permeable sovereignty”: all of our norms are on equal footing with the state’s laws. Accordingly, the state should accommodate religious, philosophical, family, or tribal norms whenever possible. Greene shows that questions of interpretive obligation share many qualities with those of political obligation. In rejecting the view that constitutional interpreters must follow either prior or higher sources of constitutional meaning, Greene confronts and turns aside arguments similar to those offered for a moral duty of citizens to obey the law.

Average ratings

N/A

Write a review

Solve jigsaw puzzle

Age

Page Count

340

Publisher

Harvard University Press

Published Date

ISBN 10

0674069390

ISBN 13

9780674069398

Understanding the 2000 Election

A Guide to the Legal Battles That Decided the Presidency

By: Abner Greene

Write a review Read reviews Take a Quiz Solve Book Puzzle

Understanding the 2000 Election

A Guide to the Legal Battles That Decided the Presidency

By: Abner Greene

Paperback Edition: Updated and with a New Foreword The nation will not soon forget the drama of the 2000 presidential election. For five weeks we were transfixed by the legal clashes that enveloped the country from election night to the Gore concession. It was instant history, and will be studied by historians, lawyers, political scientists, media critics and others for years to come. Even for those who followed the events most closely, the legal twists and turns of the post-election struggles seemed at times bewildering. We witnessed manual recounts of election ballots, GOP federal court lawsuits challenging those recounts, two Florida Supreme Court opinions, lawsuits over butterfly and absentee ballots, questions about the role of the Florida legislature and the United States Congress in resolving presidential election disputes, and two United States Supreme Court decisions, the second of which finally handed the election to Bush. Although the 2000 Presidency was decided through much legal wrangling, one should not have to be a lawyer to understand how we came to have Bush rather than Gore as our President in that hotly contested election. Understanding the 2000 Election offers an accessible, comprehensive guide to the legal battles that finally gave George W. Bush the Presidency five weeks after election night. Meant to stand next to and clarify the numerous journalistic and personal accounts of the election drama, Understanding the 2000 Election offers a offers a step-by-step, non-partisan explanation and analysis of the major legal issues involved in resolving the presidential contest. The volume also offers a clear overview of the Electoral College, its history, what would be involved in switching over to a direct election, and the likely future of the Presidential electoral process. While some still decry the 2000 election outcome as the result of political manipulation rather than the rule of law, Greene shows that almost every legal conclusion of the post-election struggle can be understood through the application of legal principle, rather than politics.

Average ratings

N/A

Write a review

Solve jigsaw puzzle

Age

Page Count

209

Publisher

NYU Press

Published Date

ISBN 10

0814731732

ISBN 13

9780814731734

Book's by Abner S. Greene

Against Obligation

Against Obligation

Against Obligation

Against Obligation

Understanding the 2000 Election

Understanding the 2000 Election

Username

Password

Username

Password

Password again

Birthday

Email