Disagreements on constitutional rights (such as racial and religious discrimination or abortion) are increasingly divisive. From the role of abortion in US presidential elections to debates about the competence creep of EU fundamental rights, the question arises: should the power to decide these matters rest with a central/federal union, or be left to individual states?
This book addresses this crucial federal boundary question from both theoretical and comparative perspectives. It explores how the proper allocation of decision-making power in federal systems can enhance impartiality and reduce polarisation.
The book both develops and critiques the influential constitutional theory of James Madison, architect of the US Constitution and modern federalism. By tracing Madison’s intellectual debt to David Hume and to common law rules on bias, it identifies gaps in his account of impartiality. It also shows how a revised Madisonian framework remains relevant to contemporary struggles in both the US and the EU over managing discord through federal structures.
The book’s comparative dimension explores three categories of rights, each reflecting particular forms of social disagreement: (i) minority rights, which often trigger group bias and spark division between majorities and minorities;(ii) ideologically divisive rights, such as abortion; and (iii) cases where group and ideological bias overlap, such as those pitting religious freedoms against ideologically contested measures, including bans on ritual slaughter or religious apparel in public employment.
By combining comparative and theoretical contributions, the book demonstrates both the perils and the promise of federalism in securing impartiality and navigating social faction.
"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.
Mohamed Moussa is Assistant Professor in EU Law, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, UK.
"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.
Seller: PBShop.store UK, Fairford, GLOS, United Kingdom
HRD. Condition: New. New Book. Delivered from our UK warehouse in 4 to 14 business days. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000. Seller Inventory # L1-9781509987283
Quantity: Over 20 available
Seller: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, U.S.A.
Condition: New. Seller Inventory # 52657366-n
Seller: PBShop.store US, Wood Dale, IL, U.S.A.
HRD. Condition: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000. Seller Inventory # L1-9781509987283
Seller: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, U.S.A.
Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition. Seller Inventory # 52657366
Seller: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, United Kingdom
Condition: New. Seller Inventory # 52657366-n
Quantity: Over 20 available
Seller: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, United Kingdom
Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition. Seller Inventory # 52657366
Quantity: Over 20 available
Seller: Grand Eagle Retail, Bensenville, IL, U.S.A.
Hardcover. Condition: new. Hardcover. Disagreements on constitutional rights (such as racial and religious discrimination or abortion) are increasingly divisive. From the role of abortion in US presidential elections to debates about the competence creep of EU fundamental rights, the question arises: should the power to decide these matters rest with a central/federal union, or be left to individual states?This book addresses this crucial federal boundary question from both theoretical and comparative perspectives. It explores how the proper allocation of decision-making power in federal systems can enhance impartiality and reduce polarisation.The book both develops and critiques the influential constitutional theory of James Madison, architect of the US Constitution and modern federalism. By tracing Madisons intellectual debt to David Hume and to common law rules on bias, it identifies gaps in his account of impartiality. It also shows how a revised Madisonian framework remains relevant to contemporary struggles in both the US and the EU over managing discord through federal structures.The books comparative dimension explores three categories of rights, each reflecting particular forms of social disagreement: (i) minority rights, which often trigger group bias and spark division between majorities and minorities;(ii) ideologically divisive rights, such as abortion; and (iii) cases where group and ideological bias overlap, such as those pitting religious freedoms against ideologically contested measures, including bans on ritual slaughter or religious apparel in public employment.By combining comparative and theoretical contributions, the book demonstrates both the perils and the promise of federalism in securing impartiality and navigating social faction. Explores how the proper allocation of decision-making authority can enhance impartiality, reduce polarisation, and foster social consensus. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability. Seller Inventory # 9781509987283
Seller: CitiRetail, Stevenage, United Kingdom
Hardcover. Condition: new. Hardcover. Disagreements on constitutional rights (such as racial and religious discrimination or abortion) are increasingly divisive. From the role of abortion in US presidential elections to debates about the competence creep of EU fundamental rights, the question arises: should the power to decide these matters rest with a central/federal union, or be left to individual states?This book addresses this crucial federal boundary question from both theoretical and comparative perspectives. It explores how the proper allocation of decision-making power in federal systems can enhance impartiality and reduce polarisation.The book both develops and critiques the influential constitutional theory of James Madison, architect of the US Constitution and modern federalism. By tracing Madisons intellectual debt to David Hume and to common law rules on bias, it identifies gaps in his account of impartiality. It also shows how a revised Madisonian framework remains relevant to contemporary struggles in both the US and the EU over managing discord through federal structures.The books comparative dimension explores three categories of rights, each reflecting particular forms of social disagreement: (i) minority rights, which often trigger group bias and spark division between majorities and minorities;(ii) ideologically divisive rights, such as abortion; and (iii) cases where group and ideological bias overlap, such as those pitting religious freedoms against ideologically contested measures, including bans on ritual slaughter or religious apparel in public employment.By combining comparative and theoretical contributions, the book demonstrates both the perils and the promise of federalism in securing impartiality and navigating social faction. Explores how the proper allocation of decision-making authority can enhance impartiality, reduce polarisation, and foster social consensus. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from our UK warehouse or from our Australian or US warehouses, depending on stock availability. Seller Inventory # 9781509987283
Quantity: 1 available
Seller: Revaluation Books, Exeter, United Kingdom
Hardcover. Condition: Brand New. 240 pages. 6.14x0.71x9.21 inches. In Stock. Seller Inventory # x-1509987282
Quantity: 2 available