We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution et plus d'un million d'autres livres sont disponibles pour le Kindle d'Amazon. En savoir plus

Acheter neuf

Identifiez-vous pour activer la commande 1-Click.
en essayant gratuitement Amazon Premium pendant 30 jours. Votre inscription aura lieu lors du passage de la commande. En savoir plus.
Acheter d'occasion
D'occasion - Comme neuf Voir les détails
Prix : EUR 15,00

Amazon Rachète votre article
Recevez un chèque-cadeau de EUR 5,37
Amazon Rachète cet article
Plus de choix
Vous l'avez déjà ? Vendez votre exemplaire ici
Désolé, cet article n'est pas disponible en
Image non disponible pour la
couleur :
Image non disponible

Commencez à lire We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution sur votre Kindle en moins d'une minute.

Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici ou téléchargez une application de lecture gratuite.

The Civil Rights Revolution [Anglais] [Relié]

Bruce A. Ackerman

Prix : EUR 28,83 Livraison à EUR 0,01 En savoir plus.
  Tous les prix incluent la TVA
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Il ne reste plus que 1 exemplaire(s) en stock (d'autres exemplaires sont en cours d'acheminement).
Expédié et vendu par Amazon. Emballage cadeau disponible.
Voulez-vous le faire livrer le lundi 3 novembre ? Choisissez la livraison en 1 jour ouvré sur votre bon de commande. En savoir plus.


Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle EUR 19,92  
Relié EUR 28,83  
Vendez cet article - Prix de rachat jusqu'à EUR 5,37
Vendez The Civil Rights Revolution contre un chèque-cadeau d'une valeur pouvant aller jusqu'à EUR 5,37, que vous pourrez ensuite utiliser sur tout le site Amazon.fr. Les valeurs de rachat peuvent varier (voir les critères d'éligibilité des produits). En savoir plus sur notre programme de reprise Amazon Rachète.

Offres spéciales et liens associés

Descriptions du produit

We the People: Civil Rights Revolution Volume 3 The Civil Rights Revolution carries Bruce Ackerman's sweeping reinterpretation of constitutional history into the era beginning with Brown v Board of Education. Laws that ended Jim Crow and ensured equal rights at work, in schools, and in the voting booth gained congressional approval only after the American people mobilized their support.

Détails sur le produit

Dans ce livre (En savoir plus)
Parcourir les pages échantillon
Couverture | Copyright | Table des matières | Extrait | Index
Rechercher dans ce livre:

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur Amazon.fr
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 4.2 étoiles sur 5  5 commentaires
4 internautes sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 Disappointing Overall 23 juin 2014
Par Prof - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié|Achat vérifié
This book will be of limited interest to anyone familiar with Civil Rights History. I had thought this would be an extension of Professor Ackerman's earlier work with a focus on how Supreme Court cases from the civil rights era had "changed" the Constitution, and there was some of that here. But much more of the work was a limited history of the Civil Rights movement by a Professor whose expertise lies outside of civil rights, and there was very little original in the book. For those unfamiliar with his work, or with some of the basic history, this would likely be of interest, as it is reasonably well written though fairly repetitive in parts, but otherwise high chance of disappointment.
4 internautes sur 5 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Novelistic Constitutional Law thriller 21 juin 2014
Par Free At Last - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié|Achat vérifié
This third volume of Bruce Ackerman's We the People series breaks with the previous two in titling: the first was Foundations and the second Transformations. Calling this third volume simply Revolutions would have been more consistent with titling but not with thesis: It is Ackerman's claim that America develops neither by gradual evolution nor by total rupture, but through moments of what he calls higher lawmaking, when the body politic unites and We the People chart a new course.

I am a non-lawyer who has been following this story as if it were a multipart novel, and this third volume is sometimes almost a thriller. Ackerman is an exciting writer, deploying brilliant speeches, luminescent cameos, and sudden charging moments of history (one section begins, "The assassin's bullet ...") It's a high energy read. If the fundamental characteristic of a novel is its accumulation of detail, this true-life legal thriller is full of legislative, court and street-level story. We are shown opinions that were drafted but never issued, congressman who surpassed Supreme Court judges in creating new theories of constitutional interpretation and the intersection of real-time TV violence with back room political deal making.

The historical civil rights revolution began (in Ackerman's rendition) with an act of bravery and novel Constitutional argument rendered by the authority conventionally assumed to own this option: the Supreme Court. In Brown vs. Board of Education,, Chief Justice Warren based much of his argument on "the distinctive wrongness of institutionalized humiliation." This anti-humiliation theory of Constitutional thought was then taken up by other branches of government and formed the core of most of the great civil rights legislation to follow. However, interestingly, it was abandoned by the Court itself. From Brown until 2013 it instead based its civil rights decisions on the much weaker theory of "strict scrutiny," first enunciated in Loving vs. Virginia (the decision that declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.) This theory derives, bizarrely enough, from Korematsu vs. US, the reviled but never overturned WWII era decision upholding internment of ethnic Japanese US citizens. It is Ackerman's thesis that this was an act of faint-heartedness on the part of the court. However, We the People went where the Court was afraid to tread. The raft of Civil Rights legislation passed in the 60s and 70s were forms of higher lawmaking, in which the US Constitution was de facto amended without the need for a formal Article 5 process, and much of this legislation was explicitly based on the evils of institutionalized humiliation.

This book appears to have been 16 years in the making, but recent events have provided perfect test cases for Ackerman's argument. He turns to these in the final pages of the book. Windsor vs. US is an example, it would appear, of the Court remembering what Warren said at the beginning. Justice Kennedy reached very nearly plagiarized Earl Warren's anti-humiliation argument to make his case against DOMA's restriction on federal acceptance of state sanctioned state marriages. Ackerman applauds this for several pages, but then turns to a significant challenge to his narrative: Shelby vs. Holder, in which Chief Justice Roberts invalidated a major Civil Rights Revolution era act and, in essence, ignored the fact that it was We the People and not the Supreme Court that had spoken.

And this would seem to point out the weakness in Ackermann's fundamental hortatory point: that the Supreme Court, and Congress, and, perhaps above all, legal historians should explicitly recognize the extra-constitutional processes of American constitutional development. He wants the court (and congress, and historians) to consider valid not just what Madison or Hamilton said, but what Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen and Martin Luther King said. Rather than valorize exclusively the founding generation, he demands we accept that the US Republic has been refounded several times by figures just as great.

But is this even plausible? It is the nature of legalistic reasoning to sham priestly independence from public mood. This provides a sense of continuity, utilizing a sacred text and ancient patriarchs, massively reinterpreting old words while pretending to rely only upon those words. And the American public seems to like it that way. Does Ackermann really expect a Justice to quote a Senator? Even supposing the Supreme Court were insufficiently jealous of its own majesty to do so, what would its audience think? We know that our legislators are windbags, but we like to think our (favorite) Justices are secular saints.

In other words, while we Americans may in fact modify our own Constitution on the sly when it suits us, we may want to believe otherwise of ourselves. This act of pretense may be as American as the process it pretends not to see.
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Five Stars 17 août 2014
Par Tomas Requena Lopez - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié|Achat vérifié
The book arrived at time and it is a good book as I expected.
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Five Stars 22 septembre 2014
Par Tomas Dumbrovsky - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié|Achat vérifié
Amazing book. Paradigm shifting.
0 internautes sur 2 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 Four Stars 21 juillet 2014
Par Threebe - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié|Achat vérifié
Very good...well researched.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon

Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique


Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?