Leonard Levy's new book, a compendium of his law review articles, book chapters, and basic shorter writings on themes with which he has long been identified, is a treasure chest of sound and reasonable analysis of American constitutional history. As one reviewer of the manuscript put matters: “There is not a clinker amongst them.” For anyone who thinks that liberal analysis has grown soft and flabby, a good dose of Levy's book should set the record straight. Seasoned Judgments is divided into three parts: Rights, Constitutional History, and The Marshall Court. In this progression from the general to the concrete, Levy never ignores the context as well as the content of the judicial process. Indeed, it is this linkage that separates him from nearly all other commentators and writers on the subjects covered. Whether discussing why the original Constitution lacked a Bill or Rights, or why the Fourth Amendment uses the imperative form “shall not” rather than the conditional form “ought not,” the reader enters a world of explanation rich in detail and carful scholarly elaboration. Well-known as editor in chief of the multivolumed Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, this new volume extracts some of Levy's own contributions to that effort. As a result, one can, for the first time, gain a clear sense of the author's own profound sense of the major issues confronting American law from the founding fathers to the present. The analysis of such still unresolved issues as flag desecration, the exclusionary rule, testimonial compulsion, taxation without representation, and the nature of the Constitution itself, will be of tremendous appeal to historians and political scientists as well as attorneys and judges.
A history of the origins of the Bill of Rights. Leonard W. Levy offers a panoramic view of the liberties secured by the first ten amendments of the Constitution and illuminates the behind-the-scenes manoeuvrings, public rhetoric and political motivations of James Madison and others.
Leonard Levy's classic work examines the circumstances that led to the writing of the establishment clause of the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .' He argues that, contrary to popular belief, the framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit government aid to religion even on an impartial basis. He thus refutes the view of 'nonpreferentialists,' who interpret the clause as allowing such aid provided that the assistance is not restricted to a preferred church. For this new edition, Levy has added to his original arguments and incorporated much new material, including an analysis of Jefferson's ideas on the relationship between church and state and a discussion of the establishment clause cases brought before the Supreme Court since the book was originally published in 1986.
For more than two hundred years a debate has raged between those who believe that jurists should follow the original intentions of the Founding Fathers and those who argue that the Constitution is a living document subject to interpretation by each succeeding generation. The controversy has flared anew in our own time as a facet of the battle between conservatives and liberals. In Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution, the distinguished constitutional scholar Leonard Levy cuts through the Gordian Knot of claim and counterclaim with an argument that is clear, logical, and compelling. Rejecting the views of both left and right, he evaluates the doctrine of "original intent" by examining the sources of constitutional law and landmark cases. Finally, he finds no evidence for grounding the law in original intent. Judicial activism—the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution—he sees as inevitable.
Through a critical study of Shaw's opinions, Levy sheds light on how his peers perceived rights, duties, and liabilities, the roles of government, and the nature of law itself. Overall, the opinions of Justice Shaw illuminate how liberty and order were comparatively valued, which interests were deemed important enough to secure in legal moorings, and where the points of social tension, growth, and power were rooted.
What society considers blasphemy - a verbal assault against the sacred - is a litmus test of the standards it believes to be necessary to preserve unity, order, and morality. Society has always condemned as blasphemy what it regards as an abuse of liberty
Leonard Levy traces the development and implementation of forfeiture and contends that it is a questionable practice, which, because it is so often abused, serves only to undermine civil society. Arguing that civil forfeiture is unconstitutional, Levy provides examples of the victimization of innocent people and demonstrates that it has been used primarily against petty offienders rather than against its original targets, members of organized crime.
Examines the portion of the First Amendment providing for separation of church and state, discusses the history of the clause, and offers a modern interpretation
Leonard Levy's new book, a compendium of his law review articles, book chapters, and basic shorter writings on themes with which he has long been identified, is a treasure chest of sound and reasonable analysis of American constitutional history. As one reviewer of the manuscript put matters: "There is not a clinker amongst them." For anyone who thinks that liberal analysis has grown soft and flabby, a good dose of Levy's book should set the record straight. Seasoned Judgments is divided into three parts: Rights, Constitutional History, and The Marshall Court. In this progression from the general to the concrete, Levy never ignores the context as well as the content of the judicial process. Indeed, it is this linkage that separates him from nearly all other commentators and writers on the subjects covered. Whether discussing why the original Constitution lacked a Bill or Rights, or why the Fourth Amendment uses the imperative form "shall not" rather than the conditional form "ought not," the reader enters a world of explanation rich in detail and carful scholarly elaboration. Well-known as editor in chief of the multivolumed Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, this new volume extracts some of Levy's own contributions to that effort. As a result, one can, for the first time, gain a clear sense of the author's own profound sense of the major issues confronting American law from the founding fathers to the present. The analysis of such still unresolved issues as flag desecration, the exclusionary rule, testimonial compulsion, taxation without representation, and the nature of the Constitution itself, will be of tremendous appeal to historians and political scientists as well as attorneys and judges.
Leonard Levy's classic work examines the circumstances that led to the writing of the establishment clause of the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .' He argues that, contrary to popular belief, the framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit government aid to religion even on an impartial basis. He thus refutes the view of 'nonpreferentialists,' who interpret the clause as allowing such aid provided that the assistance is not restricted to a preferred church. For this new edition, Levy has added to his original arguments and incorporated much new material, including an analysis of Jefferson's ideas on the relationship between church and state and a discussion of the establishment clause cases brought before the Supreme Court since the book was originally published in 1986.
For more than two hundred years a debate has raged between those who believe that jurists should follow the original intentions of the Founding Fathers and those who argue that the Constitution is a living document subject to interpretation by each succeeding generation. The controversy has flared anew in our own time as a facet of the battle between conservatives and liberals. In Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution, the distinguished constitutional scholar Leonard Levy cuts through the Gordian Knot of claim and counterclaim with an argument that is clear, logical, and compelling. Rejecting the views of both left and right, he evaluates the doctrine of "original intent" by examining the sources of constitutional law and landmark cases. Finally, he finds no evidence for grounding the law in original intent. Judicial activism—the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution—he sees as inevitable.
Leonard Levy traces the development and implementation of forfeiture and contends that it is a questionable practice, which, because it is so often abused, serves only to undermine civil society. Arguing that civil forfeiture is unconstitutional, Levy provides examples of the victimization of innocent people and demonstrates that it has been used primarily against petty offienders rather than against its original targets, members of organized crime.
What society considers blasphemy - a verbal assault against the sacred - is a litmus test of the standards it believes to be necessary to preserve unity, order, and morality. Society has always condemned as blasphemy what it regards as an abuse of liberty
Encyclopedia of the American Presidency S-Y. From Saint Lawrence Seaway to Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer. This edition also has a reproduction of The Constitution of the United States.
Many books have shown that journalists have political power, but none have offered a more wide-ranging account of how they got it. The Power of the Press is a pioneering look at the birth of political journalism. Before the American Revolution, Thomas Leonard notes, the press in the colonies was a timid enterprise, poorly protected by law and shy of government. Newspapers helped make the Revolution, but they were not fully aware of the way they could fit into a democracy. It was only in the nineteenth century that journalists learned to tell the stories and supply the pictures that made politics a national preoccupation. Leonard traces the rise of political reporting through some fascinating corridors of American history: the exposes of the Revolutionary era, the "unfeeling accuracy" of Congressional reporting, the role of the New York Times and Harper's Weekly in attacking New York City's infamous Tweed Ring, and the emergence of "muckraking" at the beginning of our century. The increasing power of the press in the political arena has been a double-edged sword, Leonard argues. He shows that while political reporting nurtured the broad interest in politics that made democracy possible, this journalism became a threat to political participation.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.