Keeping the People's Liberties: Legislators, Citizens, and Judges as Guardians of Rights
Which branch of government should be entrusted with safeguarding individual rights? Conventional wisdom assigns this responsibility to the courts, on the grounds that liberty can only be protected through judicial interpretation of bills of rights. In fact it is difficult for many people even to conceive of any other way that rights might be protected. John Dinan challenges this understanding by tracing and evaluating the different methods that have been used to protect rights in the United States from the founding until the present era.
By examining legislative statutes, judicial decisions, convention proceedings, and popular initiatives in four representative states—Massachusetts, Virginia, Michigan, and Oregon—Dinan shows that rights have been secured in the American polity in three principal ways. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, rights were protected primarily through representative institutions. Then in the early twentieth century, citizens began to turn to direct democratic institutions to secure their rights. It was not until the mid-twentieth century that judges came to be seen as the chief protectors of liberties.
By analyzing the relative ability of legislators, citizens, and judges to serve as guardians of rights, Dinan's study demonstrates that each is capable of securing certain rights in certain situations. Elected representatives are generally capable of protecting most rights, but popular initiatives provide an effective mechanism for securing rights in the face of legislative intransigence, and judicial decisions offer a superior means of protecting liberties in crisis times. Accordingly, rather than viewing rights protection as the peculiar province of any single institution, this task ought to be considered the proper responsibility of all these institutions.
By undertaking a comparison of these institutional methods across such a wide expanse of time, Keeping the People's Liberties makes a highly original contribution to the literature on rights protection and provides a new perspective on debates about the contemporary role of representative, populist, and judicial institutions.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Republican Institutions and the Protection of Rights
Republican Institutions as Keepers of the Peoples Liberties
The Theory and Design of Populist Institutions
8 other sections not shown
Acts of Assembly American argued Bill of Rights California citizens civil liberties common-law Commonwealth constitutional amendment Constitutional Convention constitutional decision constitutional provisions convention delegates counsel Declaration of Rights defendants deliberation direct democracy direct democratic institutions effect exemptions federal Freedom guarantee Harvard Law Review Ibid initiative and referendum instance interpretation James judges judicial decisions Judicial Review judicialist regime judiciary level of protection majority Mass Massachusetts Acts Massachusetts Convention Massachusetts General Court Massachusetts Supreme Court Michigan Convention Michigan Supreme Court nineteenth century Oregon Laws Oregon Legislative Assembly Oregon Supreme Court overturned particular political process popular populist populist institutions populist reformers populist regime principles prohibited proposed protect rights protection of rights relied religious liberty representative institutions republican regime responsibility rights protection Robert role secure rights secured the right statutory suffrage tion trial tutional twentieth century U.S. Supreme Court violated Virginia Acts Virginia General Assembly vote voters York