There is growing judicial, academic and political interest in the concept of common law constitutional rights. Concurrently, significant public law judgments, including R (Miller) v The Prime Minister, R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal, continue to sustain and enrich the academic debate on the nature of the UK constitution. Bringing these two highly topical themes together, the book argues, firstly, that neither common law constitutionalism nor political constitutionalism adequately captures the nature of public law litigation because neither is fully able to account for the co-existence and interplay between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Advancing the idea of a 'nuanced' constitution instead, the book then provides an in-depth analysis of common law constitutional rights, looking at their history, conceptual foundations, contemporary characteristics, coverage and resilience. In doing so, this book highlights and re-conceptualises the dynamics and mechanisms of constitutional law adjudication and provides the first comprehensive critique of common law constitutional rights jurisprudence. It is centred around extensive case law analysis which focuses predominantly on recent Supreme Court judgments.

There is a developing body of legal reasoning in the United Kingdom Supreme Court in which members of the senior judiciary have asserted the primary role of common law constitutional rights and critiqued legal arguments based first and foremost on the Human Rights Act 1998. Their calls for a shift in legal reasoning have created a sense amongst both scholars and the judiciary that something significant is happening. Yet despite renewed academic and judicial interest we have limited insight into what common law constitutional rights we have, how they work and what they offer. This book is the first collection of its kind to systematically explore both the content and role of individual common law constitutional rights alongside the constitutional significance and broader implications of these developments. It therefore contributes not only to our understanding of what the common law might be capable of offering in terms of the protection of rights, but also to our understanding of the nature of the constitutional order of which such rights are an integral part.

This book explores how the Internet impacts on the protection of fundamental rights, particularly with regard to freedom of speech and privacy. In doing so, it seeks to bridge the gap between Internet Law and European and Constitutional Law. The book aims to emancipate the debate on internet law and jurisprudence from the dominant position, with specific reference to European legal regimes. This approach aims to inject a European and constitutional “soul” into the topic. Moreover, the book addresses the relationship between new technologies and the protection of fundamental rights within the theoretical debate surrounding the process of European integration, with particular emphasis on judicial dialogue. This innovative book provides a thorough analysis of the forms, models and styles of judicial protection of fundamental rights in the digital era and compares the European vision to that of the United States. The book offers the first comparative analysis in which the notion of (judicial) frame, borrowed from linguistic and cognitive studies, is systematically applied to the theories of interpretation and argumentation. With a Foreword by Robert Spano, President of the European Court of Human Rights.

Examines constitutional innovations related to executive power made by each of the nation's forty-four presidents.

The Constitutions that Shaped Us re-examines from a comparative and critical standpoint the events, key players, and texts which, taken together, help to interpret all Canadian constitutions prior to Confederation. The key constitutional documents that are studied in this book are the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec Act of 1774, the Constitutional Act of 1791, and the 1840 Act of Union. Great Canadian historians of the past take turns in providing unforgettable sketches and understandings of the actions of monumental figures such as Governors Murray, Carleton, and Elgin, British politicians from Pitt to Burke, Grey, and Durham, without forgetting the leading political and intellectual colonial figures such as Bédard, Papineau, La Fontaine, Mackenzie, and Baldwin. Gathering together the most renowned and representative works of constitutional scholarship, this anthology provides readers with an in-depth account of the events that would ultimately lead to the union of British colonies, the birth of the Dominion of Canada, and the rebirth of political autonomy in a colony known successively as Quebec, Lower Canada, Canada East, and once again Quebec in 1867. Following a general survey of the various constitutions enacted under British rule, this collection includes an equal number of commentaries by French- and English-speaking historians concerning each of the four constitutions to offer the most nuanced view of Canada’s origins to date.

There is growing judicial, academic and political interest in the concept of common law constitutional rights. Concurrently, significant public law judgments, including R (Miller) v The Prime Minister, R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal, continue to sustain and enrich the academic debate on the nature of the UK constitution. Bringing these two highly topical themes together, the book argues, firstly, that neither common law constitutionalism nor political constitutionalism adequately captures the nature of public law litigation because neither is fully able to account for the co-existence and interplay between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Advancing the idea of a 'nuanced' constitution instead, the book then provides an in-depth analysis of common law constitutional rights, looking at their history, conceptual foundations, contemporary characteristics, coverage and resilience. In doing so, this book highlights and re-conceptualises the dynamics and mechanisms of constitutional law adjudication and provides the first comprehensive critique of common law constitutional rights jurisprudence. It is centred around extensive case law analysis which focuses predominantly on recent Supreme Court judgments.

Few constitutional disputes maintain as powerful a grip on the public mind as the battle over the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association and gun-control groups struggle unceasingly over a piece of the political landscape that no candidate for the presidency--and few for Congress--can afford to ignore. But who's right? Will it ever be possible to settle the argument? In Out of Range, one of the nation's leading legal scholars takes a calm, objective look at this bitter debate. Mark V. Tushnet brings to this book a deep expertise in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the role of the law in American life. He breaks down the different positions on the Second Amendment, showing that it is a mistake to stereotype them. Tushnet's exploration is honest and nuanced; he finds the constitutional arguments finely balanced, which is one reason the debate has raged for so long. Along the way, he examines various experiments in public policy, from both sides, and finds little clear evidence for the practical effectiveness of any approach to gun safety and prosecution. Of course, he notes, most advocates of the right to keep and bear arms agree that it should be subject to reasonable regulation. Ultimately, Tushnet argues, our view of the Second Amendment reflects our sense of ourselves as a people. The answer to the debate will not be found in any holy writ, but in our values and our vision of the nation. This compact, incisive examination offers an honest and thoughtful guide to both sides of the argument, pointing the way to solutions that could calm, if not settle, this bitter dispute.