What Brown v. Board of Education should have said : the nation's top legal experts rewrite America's landmark civil rights decision
著者
書誌事項
What Brown v. Board of Education should have said : the nation's top legal experts rewrite America's landmark civil rights decision
New York University Press, c2001
- : cloth
大学図書館所蔵 全13件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Includes bibliographical references (p. 237-242) and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
Legal experts rewrite the landmark court decision
Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 decision ordering the desegregation of America's public schools, is perhaps the most famous case in American constitutional law. Criticized and even openly defied when first handed down, in half a century Brown has become a venerated symbol of equality and civil rights.
Its meaning, however, remains as contested as the case is celebrated. In the decades since the original decision, constitutional interpreters of all stripes have found within it different meanings. Both supporters and opponents of affirmative action have claimed the mantle of Brown, criticizing the other side for betraying its spirit. Meanwhile, the opinion itself has often been criticized as bland and uninspiring, carefully written to avoid controversy and maintain unanimity among the Justices.
As the 50th anniversary of Brown approaches, America's schools are increasingly divided by race and class. Liberals and conservatives alike harbor profound regrets about the development of race relations since Brown, while disagreeing heatedly about the proper role of the courts in promoting civil equality and civil rights.
In this volume, nine of America's top constitutional and civil rights experts have been challenged to rewrite the Brown decision as they would like it to have been written, incorporating what they now know about the subsequent history of the United States but making use of only those sources available at the time of the original decision. In addition, Jack Balkin gives a detailed introduction to the case, chronicling the history of the litigation in Brown, and explaining the current debates over its legacy.
Contributors include: Bruce Ackerman, Jack M Balkin, Derrick A. Bell, Drew S. Days, John Hart Ely, Catharine A. MacKinnon, Michael W. McConnell, Frank I Michelman, and Cass R. Sunstein.
目次
part i : Brown v. Board of Education-ACritical Introduction 1 Brown as Icon 2 The History of the Brown Litigation 3 Rewriting Brown: A Guide to the Opinions part ii : Revised Opinions in Brown v. Board of Education * Jack M. Balkin (judgment of the Court) * Drew S. Days III (concurring) * Bruce Ackerman (concurring) * Frank I. Michelman (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) * John Hart Ely (concurring in the judgment except as to the remedy) * Catharine A. MacKinnon (concurring in the judgment) * Michael W. McConnell (concurring in the judgment) * Cass R. Sunstein (concurring in the judgment) * Derrick A. Bell (dissenting)
「Nielsen BookData」 より