In this study, I examined the Supreme Court's agenda from 1801 to 1993 to determine the composition and dynamics of the issues that have dominated the business of the Court. Specifically, I set out to test empirically Robert G. McCloskey's (now standard) characterization of the Supreme Court's history, which sees it as dominated by nationalism/federalism issues before the Civil War, by economic issues just after the War through the 1930s, and by civil rights and liberties since the 1930s. The question that drove my investigation was "Is McCloskey's interpretation, which appears to be based on the great cases of Supreme Court history, an accurate description of the agenda represented in the Supreme Court's total body of reported decisions?" To test McCloskey's historical theses I employed concepts adapted from Richard Pacelle's (1991) important work on the agenda of post-Roosevelt Court and used the methods of classical historical analysis and of interrupted time-series analysis. Data for my research came from existing datasets and from my own collection (I coded the manifest content of thousands of Supreme Court's decisions from 1887 back to 1801). The most important finding from my analyses is that McCloskey not withstanding, the pre-Civil War Supreme Court's agenda was clearly dominated by economic issues of various sorts, not by nationalism/federalism as previously believed. Another key finding is that partisanship had a pronounced impact on the Court's attention to this category of issueseven in the periods when the Supreme Court had very little control of its docket. These results suggest that Supreme Court scholars should reassess or rethink their previous notion of the Court's pre-Civil War agendathe now well-established view that nation-state issues dominated the business of the Court in its formative yearsand the idea (often expressed implicitly) that the Court's mandatory jurisdiction suppressed attitudinal factors on the Court in the earlier eras.

No description available.

American Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of religious freedom is, for the most part, predicated upon a form of liberal democratic theory commonly known as "procedural liberalism." A close analysis of this jurisprudence reveals that because of this theoretical basis, the Supreme Court has been unable to craft a consistent jurisprudence that adequately addresses the reality of religion as a pluralistic social institution. Based upon the detailed critiques of procedural liberalism by such thinkers as Charles Taylor and Iris Marion Young, and drawing upon a concept known as "deep diversity" suggested by Taylor, a new general political theory, identified as the theory of deep diversity, is developed to answer these critiques. This theory is then used to reconceptualize Supreme Court jurisprudence and to demonstrate how the theory can be applied in a practical way to resolve the many problems inherent in existing religious freedom jurisprudence so as to support and advance religious pluralism.

Within the framework of the process of constitutionalization of Law, the treatment towards antitrust  regulation is being discussed on the jurisprudential level. An idea has appeared that suggests that deciding against antitrust regulationis  beneficial for companies, but has a negative impact towards societyIn the present article, the author does a comparison between the Peruvian Constitutional Court jurisprudence about antitrust and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States, demonstrating that tending towards regulation is harmful for society.The author also raises the question about the reasons for which the Supreme Court of the United States has a clear and defined criteria to decide when it is convenient to regulate antitrust, called “decision theory”, while the Peruvian  Court  has an erratic and unjustified criteria to decide aboutregulation of antitrust. / En el marco del proceso de constitucionalización del Derecho, el tratamiento de la libre competencia se ha venido discutiendo a nivel jurisprudencial. Así, ha surgido la idea de que decidir no regu-lar la libre competencia beneficia a las empresas,mas no a la sociedad en general.En el presente artículo, el autor propone una comparación entre la jurisprudencia respecto a la libre competencia del Tribunal Constitucional peruano y la de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, buscando demostrar que, más bien, tender a la re- gulación es perjudicial para la sociedad.Asimismo, el autor abre la interrogante acerca de las razones por las cuales la Corte estadounidense tiene un criterio claro respecto a cuándo no es conveniente la regulación, mientras que el Tribunal peruano tiene un criterio errático y no justificado para tomar decisiones al respecto.

No description available.

No description available.

The relationship between the state and religious communities in the USA Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to introduce the relevant aspects of the relationship between the state and religious communities in the United States of America. The focus of the thesis lies in the introduction of the development of interpretation of both religious clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court, especially in the 20th century. This thesis aims to show, how both religious clauses, even though they were created to serve the same purpose, are in some cases interpreted in a contradicting way. The thesis also elaborates on religious freedom in the sensitive environment of armed forces, as the soldiers depend totally on services provided to them by the government. In the final part, the thesis introduces certain exceptions from the generally applicable legal provisions for the churches and religious legal entities, as well as recent development from the perspective of admitting religious freedom to business corporations. Keywords: freedom of religion, Constitution of the United States, First Amendment, churches, Supreme Court, USA

Submitted by Silvana Teresinha Dornelles Studzinski (sstudzinski) on 2016-10-11T14:55:58Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Carlos Eduardo Reis Fortes do Rego_.pdf: 905042 bytes, checksum: 155c79b1d9ebf0c419bbff3ff378bc0e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-10-11T14:55:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Carlos Eduardo Reis Fortes do Rego_.pdf: 905042 bytes, checksum: 155c79b1d9ebf0c419bbff3ff378bc0e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-17 / CNPQ – Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / A presente dissertação se propõe a analisar o papel exercido pela Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da América no cenário político-jurídico do país. De uma instituição meramente jurídica, historicamente, a Suprema Corte tem desempenhado importante papel na formulação de políticas públicas nacionais e na condução do debate público nacional. Mediante uma análise histórica do Direito estadunidense, pretende-se apresentar as diferenças e as peculiaridades do Direito dos Estados Unidos, em comparação ao Direito inglês. Nesse cotejo, nota-se que antecedentes do controle jurisdicional de constitucionalidade de leis já eram vistos no Direito inglês, como as contribuições de Edward Coke, e na própria história colonial americana. Com fundamento no common law inglês, mas com influências da tradição jurídica romano-germânica, o Direito estadunidense desenvolveu institutos próprios, aptos a enfrentar os desafios surgidos no novo país. Entre as inovações, há a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, órgão de cúpula do Poder Judiciário, que, entretanto, desempenha importante função política na concretização das disposições constitucionais, na harmonização entre os Poderes e entre os diversos entes federados. Em verdade, a Corte concorre na elaboração de políticas públicas nacionais, voz ativa nas principais deliberações públicas nacionais, influenciada e influenciando os atores políticos tradicionais. / This thesis analyzes the role played by the United States Supreme Court in the legal and political frame. From a legal institution, historically, the Supreme Court has played an important role in the formulation of national policies and the conduct of national public debate. For historical analysis of U.S. Law, it intends to show the differences and peculiarities of the U.S. Law versus to English law. Then, the judicial review`s history started in English Law, as the study of Edward Coke, and even in the American colonial history. Based on English common law, but with influences from civil law tradition, the American Law has developed its own institutions, able to face the challenges in the new country. Among the innovations, there is the United States Supreme Court, a member of the Federal Judiciary, which, however, plays an important political role in the respect of constitutional provisions, the harmonization between the powers and the States. In fact, the Court takes part of the national policies, thus it is an active voice in the national public deliberations, whereas the Court influenced and is influencing for the traditional political actors.

Not available / text

This paper will attempt to explore the history and function of judical disagreement behaviour using information from both the Canadian Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. The evolution of national high court decision making, highlights the changing role of courts within the political and public spheres, as well as the increasing authority courts have over policy. This changing role reinforces the need to study the role of courts on law. I will use minority opinions from the Laskin and Dickson courts to study what disagreement reveals about the decision making process. Judicial disagreement has largely been summed up into two deficient stereotypes: the dissent as "serious" disagreement and the separate concurrence as inferior disagreement to the dissent. I will dispel this fallacy by introducing the five categories created to describe a new way of thinking about judicial disagreement and to shatter the old stereotypes. / vii, 149 leaves ; 29 cm.