In a series of remarkable forays, Post develops an original account of how law functions in a democratic society. He draws on work in sociology, philosophy, and political theory, to offer a radically new perspective on some of the most pressing constitutional issues of our day, such as the regulation of racist speech, pornography, and privacy.

In a series of remarkable forays, Post develops an original account of how law functions in a democratic society. He draws on work in sociology, philosophy, and political theory, to offer a radically new perspective on some of the most pressing constitutional issues of our day, such as the regulation of racist speech, pornography, and privacy.

Reading between the lines: America's implicit Constitution -- Heeding the deed: America's enacted Constitution -- Hearing the people: America's lived Constitution -- Confronting modern case law: America's "warrented" Constitution -- Putting precedent in its place: America's doctrinal Constitution -- Honoring the icons: America's symbolic Constitution -- "Remembering the ladies" : America's feminist Constitution -- Following Washington's lead: America's "Georgian" Constitution -- Interpreting government practices: America's institutional Constitution -- Joining the party: America's partisan Constitution -- Doing the right thing: America's conscientious Constitution -- Envisioning the future: America's unfinished Constitution -- Afterward -- Appendix: America's written Constitution.

In this groundbreaking analysis of Supreme Court decision-making, Andrew Coan explains how judicial caseload shapes the course of American constitutional law and the role of the Court in American society. Compared with the vast machinery surrounding Congress and the president, the Supreme Court is a tiny institution that can resolve only a small fraction of the constitutional issues that arise in any given year. Rationing the Constitution shows that this simple yet frequently ignored fact is essential to understanding how the Supreme Court makes constitutional law. Due to the structural organization of the judiciary and certain widely shared professional norms, the capacity of the Supreme Court to review lower-court decisions is severely limited. From this fact, Andrew Coan develops a novel and arresting theory of Supreme Court decision-making. In deciding cases, the Court must not invite more litigation than it can handle. On many of the most important constitutional questions—touching on federalism, the separation of powers, and individual rights—this constraint creates a strong pressure to adopt hard-edged categorical rules, or defer to the political process, or both. The implications for U.S. constitutional law are profound. Lawyers, academics, and social activists pursuing social reform through the courts must consider whether their goals can be accomplished within the constraints of judicial capacity. Often the answer will be no. The limits of judicial capacity also substantially constrain the Court’s much touted—and frequently lamented—power to overrule democratic majorities. As Rationing the Constitution demonstrates, the Supreme Court is David, not Goliath.

In Presidential Government in Gaullist France, William G. Andrews describes and explains the basic character of executive-legislative relations in Gaullist France from 1958 to 1974. He demonstrates that the Fifth Republic became presidential despite its parliamentary constitution because of changes made by DeGaulle that were compatible with the emergent character of French society. The information is provided in a conceptual framework that gives it greater coherence, explanatory value, and significance. Andrews relates differences in the nature of institutions, of societies, and of political problems to types of power relationships that exist between the legislative and executive branches of government. In order to achieve an objective appraisal of the controversial leader, Andrews fits DeGaulle's constitutional efforts into a broader understanding of the relationships among great leaders, texts, societies, and institutions. The book enhances our understanding of the operation of the Fifth Republic and of French government in general.

"Kent Greenawalt's Interpreting the Constitution combines a generalized account of the various approaches to interpretation with an examination of the major domains of American constitutional law. The third and capstone volume of his landmark series on legal interpretation, he utilizes numerous individual examples of decisions to illustrate his argument, which in combination demonstrate that his argument is undeniably in accord with the continuing practice of the United States Supreme Court over time. The book's central thesis is that strategies of constitutional interpretation cannot be simple and that judges must take account of multiple factors not systematically reducible to any clear ordering. For any constitution that lasts over centuries and which is hard to amend, original understanding cannot be completely determinative. To discern what that is, both how informed readers grasped a provision and what the enactors' aims were matter. Indeed, distinguishing these is usually extremely difficult, and often neither is really discernible. As time passes, what modern citizens understand becomes ever more important, diminishing the significance of original understanding. Simple versions of textualist originalism do not reflect changes in understanding over time and are therefore not really supportable. The focus on specific provision shows, among other things, the obstacles to discerning original understanding, and why the original sense of proper interpretation should itself carry importance. The scope of various provisions, such as those regarding free speech and cruel and unusual punishment, have expanded hugely since both 1791 and 1965. Even with respect to single provisions, such as the Free Speech Clause, interpretive approaches have sensibly varied, greatly depending on the particular issues at hand. How much deference judges should accord political actors also depends critically on the kind of issue involved. At once sweeping in scope and analytically powerful, this final volume cements Greenawalt's legacy as one of the leading legal scholars of this era"--Unedited summary from book jacket.