The Dignity Of Legislation

Jeremy Waldron here attempts to restore the good name of legislation in political theory. Focused in particular on the writings of Aristotle, Locke and Kant, this book recovers and highlights ways of thinking about legislation that present it as a dignified mode of governance and a respectable source of law. The focus is particularly on legislation by assemblies, large gatherings of representatives who air their disagreements in ferocious debate and make laws by deliberation and voting. Jeremy Waldron has published extensively in law, philosophy and political theory. Here he presents a unique study of the place of legislation in the canon of political thought - a study which emphasises the positive features of democracy and representative assemblies. The Dignity of Legislation is original in conception, trenchantly argued and very clearly presented, and will be of interest to a wide range of scholars and thinkers.

"This book reassesses the relationship between human dignity, law and specifically the 'personalist' school of agency. The work argues that a specific way of appreciating dignity is contained in how law understands the person, and so can be used to improve upon how we explain and interpret the law. Despite considerable differences between jurisdictions as regards human dignity in application, it is argued that the particular weight of human persons is the widely shared focal point. The central claim therefore is that the law recognizes, and tries to foster, the status of personhood, and, drawing on the work of Karol Wojtyła, the author develops a 'Status of Personhood Theory'. The book will be of interest to academics and researchers working in the areas of Legal Philosophy, Jurisprudence, Philosophy, Ethics and Political Theory"--

The Punta del Este Declaration, and this book dedicated to elaborating upon it, is devoted to exploring the ways that human dignity for everyone everywhere can be a useful tool in helping to address the challenges and strains facing human rights in the world today. In 2018, an initiative was instigated to revitalize the human rights project by way of engaging the notion of human dignity. This resulted in the Punta Del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere (Punta Del Este Declaration), a declaration co-authored by over 30 human rights experts from all over the world. The Punta Del Este Declaration simplifies and brings coherence to the concept of human dignity in 10 brief statements that capture the many dimensions and aspects of human dignity and the practical ways that human dignity is useful in the promotion of human rights. This book provides an overview of how the notion of human dignity has been used to strengthen human rights. It discusses how human dignity playsmany different roles in human rights discourse and has the force to revitalize the human rights project; it is the foundational principle upon which the human rights project is built. But it is also the telos, or end goal, of human rights. At the same time, it is an important evaluative mechanism for assessing how well a country is doing in the implementation of human rights. The book will be a valuable resource for all those working in the areas of International Human Rights Law, Legal Philosophy, and Law and Religion.

When people disagree about justice and about individual rights, how should political decisions be made among them? How should they decide about issues like tax policy, welfare provision, criminal procedure, discrimination law, hate speech, pornography, political dissent and the limits of religious toleration? The most familiar answer is that these decisions should be made democratically, by majority voting among the people or their representatives. Often, however, this answer is qualified by adding ' providing that the majority decision does not violate individual rights.' In this book Jeremy Waldron has revisited and thoroughly revised thirteen of his most recent essays. He argues that the familiar answer is correct, but that the qualification about individual rights is incoherent. If rights are the very things we disagree about, then we are quarrelling precisely about what that qualification should amount to. At best, what it means is that disagreements about rights should be resolved by some other procedure, for example, by majority voting, not among the people or their representatives, but among judges in a court. This proposal - although initially attractive - seems much less agreeable when we consider that the judges too disagree about rights, and they disagree about them along exactly the same lines as the citizens. This book offers a comprehensive critique of the idea of the judicial review of legislation. The author argues that a belief in rights is not the same as a commitment to a Bill of Rights. He shows the flaws and difficulties in many common defences of the 'democratic' character of judicial review. And he argues for an alternative approach to the problem of disagreement: when disagreements about rights arise, the respectful way to resolve them is by decision-making among the right-holders on a basis that reflects an equal respect for them as the holders of views about rights. This respect for ordinary right-holders, he argues, has been sadly lacking in the theories of justice, rights, and constitutionalism put forward in recent years by philosophers such as John Rawls and Donald Dworkin. But the book is not only about judicial review. The first tranche of essays is devoted to a theory of legislation, a theory which highlights the size, the scale and the diversity of modern legislative assemblies. Although legislation is often denigrated as a source of law, Waldron seeks to restore its tattered dignity. He deprecates the tendency to disparage legislatures and argues that such disparagement is often a way of bolstering the legitimacy of the courts, as if we had to transform our parliaments into something like the American Congress to justify importing American-style judicial reviews. Law and Disagreement redresses the balances in modern jurisprudence. It presents legislation by a representative assembly as a form of law making which is especially apt for a society whose members disagree with one another about fundamental issues of principle, for it is a form of law making that does not attempt to conceal the fact that our decisions are made and claim their authority in the midst of, not in spite of, our political and moral disagreements. This timely rights-based defence of majoritarian legislation will be welcomed by scholars of legal and political philosophy throughout the world.

This book explores the human rights consequences of recent and ongoing revisions of mental health legislation in England and Ireland. Presenting a critical discussion of the World Health Organization's 'Checklist on Mental Health Legislation' from its Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation, the author uses this checklist as a frame-work for analysis to examine the extent to which mental health legislation complies with the WHO human rights standards. The author also examines recent case-law from the European Court of Human Rights, and looks in depth at the implications of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for mental health law in England and Ireland. Focusing on dignity, human rights and mental health law, the work sets out to determine to what extent, if any, human rights concerns have influenced recent revisions of mental health legislation, and to what extent recent developments in mental health law have assisted in protecting and promoting the human rights of the mentally ill. The author seeks to articulate better, clearer and more connected ways to protect and promote the rights of the mentally ill though both law and policy.

Offers a public law theory that elaborates the idea of human dignity to illuminate and justify innovations in constitutional practice.

(Book 1 in the Determination Trilogy) He wants it back… My name is Kevin Markos, former anchor for Full News Broadcasting. I say former, because an exhaustion- and frustration-fueled emotional on-air meltdown of apocalyptic proportions means my previously dignified reputation and successful career as a highly respected conservative TV news host and commentator lay in smoking, irreparable ruins. Only one person will hire me now, and it's the last person I want to work for—Democratic Senator ShaeLynn Samuels, who's determined to be the next president of the United States. My reluctance isn't because of her, but because of who's working for her: Christopher Bruunt, the head of her Secret Service detail. A college spring break trip I thought was safely hidden forever in my past, even if it never strayed far from my thoughts, now comes back to haunt me. But if I take this job and succeed, it could resurrect my career and put me at the right hand of the most powerful person in the United States. But how much am I personally willing to sacrifice to claw my way back to the top? Because Christopher never forgot that spring break, either. And he has a few agendas of his own. This MMF contemporary political romance features older main characters, second-chance love, an Alpha Secret Service agent, power exchange, pining, frenemies to lovers, a secret workplace romance at the highest levels of our nation's government, political intrigue, and a satisfying HEA. Book 1 of the Determination Trilogy, a standalone spin-off trilogy set in the world of the Governor Trilogy, the Devastation Trilogy, and others.

"Delivered as a Tanner lecture on human values at the University of California, Berkeley, April 21, 2009 and April 22, 2009"--T.p. verso.