The Ghost In The Constitution

The Ghost in the Constitution offers a reflection on the political use of the concept of historical memory foregrounding the case of Spain. The book analyses the philosophical implications of the transference of the notion of memory from the individual consciousness to the collective subject and considers the conflation of epistemology with ethics. A subtheme is the origins and transmission of political violence, and its endurance in the form of symbolic violence and negationism in the post-Franco era. Some chapters treat of specific traumatic phenomena such as the bombing of Guernica and the Holocaust.

A book that offers new directions in the study of memory in Spain, written by one of the world's leading scholars of contemporary Spanish culture.

"I beg you to excuse my appearance. You see, I have not eaten or changed clothes or bathed for 230 years, and I know it shows. However, I pray that my offensive physical figure will not diminish the message I bring to you." From COMMITTEE OF DETAIL A CONSTITUTIONAL GHOST STORY A fictional tale of political drama and historical truth

An engaging exploration of the legal and policy questions surrounding U.S. national security and international travel

Offers an in-depth case study of the failure of popular constitution making in Turkey from 2011 to 2013.

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.

Since the Constitution's ratification, members of Congress, following Article V, have proposed approximately twelve thousand amendments, and states have filed several hundred petitions with Congress for the convening of a constitutional convention. Only twenty-seven amendments have been approved in 225 years. Why do members of Congress continue to introduce amendments at a pace of almost two hundred a year? This book is a demonstration of how social reformers and politicians have used the amendment process to achieve favorable political results even as their proposed amendments have failed to be adopted. For example, the ERA "failed" in the sense that it was never ratified, but the mobilization to ratify the ERA helped build the feminist movement (and also sparked a countermobilization). Similarly, the Supreme Court's ban on compulsory school prayer led to a barrage of proposed amendments to reverse the Court. They failed to achieve the requisite two-thirds support from Congress, but nevertheless had an impact on the political landscape. The definition of the relationship between Congress and the President in the conduct of foreign policy can also be traced directly to failed efforts to amend the Constitution during the Cold War. Roger Hartley examines familiar examples like the ERA, balanced budget amendment proposals, and pro-life attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, but also takes the reader on a three-century tour of lesser-known amendments. He explains how often the mere threat of calling a constitutional convention (at which anything could happen) effected political change.

Constitutional democracy is more fragile and less 'natural' than autocracy. While this may sound surprising to complacent democrats, more and more people find autocracy attractive, because they were never forced to understand or imagine what despotism is. Generations who have lived in stable democracies with the promise that their enviable world will become the global 'normal' find government rule without constitutionalism difficult to conceive. It is difficult, but never too late, to see one's own constitutional system as something that is fragile, or up for grabs and in need of constant attention and care. In this book, András Sajó and Renáta Uitz explore how constitutionalism protects us and how it might be undone by its own means. Sajó and Uitz's intellectual history of the constitutional ideal is rich in contextual detail and informed by case studies that give an overview of both the theory and practice of constitutionalism worldwide. Classic constitutions are contrasted with twentieth-century and contemporary endeavours, and experimentations in checks and balances. Their endeavour is neither apologetic (and certainly not celebratory), nor purely defensive: this book demonstrates why constitutionalism should continue to matter. Between the rise of populist, anti-constitutional sentiment and the normalization of the apparatus of counter-terrorism, it is imperative that the political communities who seek to sustain democracy as freedom understand the importance of constitutionalism. This book is essential reading for students of law and general readers without prior knowledge of the field, as well as those in politics who believe they know how government works. It shows what is at stake in the debate on constitutionalism.