In this book, James Stoner's purpose is to recover the common law basis of American constitutionalism. American constitutionalism in general, he argues, and judicial review in particular, cannot be fully understood without acknowledging their roots in both common law and liberal political theory. But for the most part, the common law underpinnings of constitutionalism have received short shrift.

In this study, W. J. Waluchow argues that debates between defenders and critics of constitutional bills of rights presuppose that constitutions are more or less rigid entities. Within such a conception, constitutions aspire to establish stable, fixed points of agreement and pre-commitment, which defenders consider to be possible and desirable, while critics deem impossible and undesirable. Drawing on reflections about the nature of law, constitutions, the common law, and what it is to be a democratic representative, Waluchow urges a different theory of bills of rights that is flexible and adaptable. Adopting such a theory enables one not only to answer to critics' most serious challenges, but also to appreciate the role that a bill of rights, interpreted and enforced by unelected judges, can sensibly play in a constitutional democracy.

Property law should expand opportunities for individual and collective self-determination and restrict options of interpersonal domination.

In the late 20th century, the law of sexual offenses began to reflect a striking divergence. On the one hand, it became significantly more punitive in its approach to nonconsensual sexual conduct, as in the case of rape and sexual assault. On the other hand, it became more permissive in how it dealt with putatively consensual sex, such as sodomy, adultery, and adult pornography. This book explores the conceptual and normative implications of this divergence. In doing so, it assumes that the proper role of criminal law in a liberal state is to protect individuals in their right not to be subjected to sexual contact against their will, while also safeguarding their right to engage in (private, consensual) sexual conduct in which they do wish to participate. Although consistent in the abstract, these dual aims frequently come into conflict in practice, as is explored in the context of a wide range of offenses.

Collection of essays by well-known British and American philosophers on the moral principles by which public policies and political decisions should be judged: does effective political action necessarily involve and justify actions which the individual would regard as unacceptable in "private" morality?

Scope of Judicial Review