Zusatztext A brave book. . . . Deeply thoughtful. . . . An argument for the ages. . . . A clarion call to future generations. . . . Breyer's goal is for the system to work! to solve problems! to improve our national life. The New York Times Book Review The most honest discussion of what a judge should do that you will ever find! all the more remarkable because it is written by a sitting Supreme Court justice. The Washington Post Breyer's thoughtful book draws readers into the court. . . . It extends his public ruminations with what are becoming his hallmarks: wisdom! modesty! incisiveness. Los Angeles Times Vivid and full of surprising details. . . . Exemplifies an idealism about what is possible in a democratic citizenry! and an optimism about it! that is as impressive as it is rare on the Supreme Court. . . . Very admirable. The New Republic A calm! reasoned book about how the Supreme Court should do its work and how! in history! it has sometimes failed the challenge. . . . A remarkable contribution to educating the public about our constitutional system. The New York Review of Books A users' guide to both the Constitution and the Supreme Court. . . . You will find perhaps the best five-page description ever produced of how the Supreme Court works. The Boston Globe In terms of showing how U.S. Supreme Court justices grapple with important issues! Breyer has made a significant contribution. . . . A perfect book for the law school graduate who wants a refresher in constitutional lawfrom why the court assumes the power to strike down a statute to how the court can correct itself when it makes bad decisions. San Francisco Chronicle A full account of [Breyer's] judicial philosophy! one that allows the federal government wide latitude in addressing society's problems. Jeffrey Toobin! The New Yorker A great read. . . . At a moment in which most of us talk about the Constitution in tones of rage and betrayal! Breyer's optimism! modesty! and scholarly passion are welcome change. Making Our Democracy Work is an invitation to a much more civilized and nuanced conversation about the relationship between Americans! their government! and their freedom. Slate A multidimensional approach to dissecting constitutional questions. The Philadelphia Inquirer Breyer tells us how the law works! and how it should work. . . . [ Making Our Democracy Work ] provides an understanding of the people who sit in judgment on our highest court! and what moves them. The Star-Ledger (Newark) An accomplished writer! Justice Breyer's absorbing stories offer insight into how a democracy works! and sometimes fails. Publishers Weekly (starred review) Informationen zum Autor Stephen Breyer is an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. He is a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C. Klappentext Charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the awesome power to strike down laws enacted by our elected representatives. Why does the public accept the Court's decisions as legitimate and follow them, even when those decisions are highly unpopular? What must the Court do to maintain the public's faith? How can it help make our democracy work? In this groundbreaking book, Justice Stephen Breyer tackles these questions and more, offering an original approach to interpreting the Constitution that judges, lawyers, and scholars will look to for many years to come. Introduction Day after day I see Americansof every race, religion, nationality, and point of viewtrying to resolve their differences in the courtroom. It has not always been so. In earlier times, both here and abroad...

Auteur

Stephen Breyer is an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. He is a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.

Texte du rabat

Charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the awesome power to strike down laws enacted by our elected representatives. Why does the public accept the Court's decisions as legitimate and follow them, even when those decisions are highly unpopular? What must the Court do to maintain the public's faith? How can it help make our democracy work? In this groundbreaking book, Justice Stephen Breyer tackles these questions and more, offering an original approach to interpreting the Constitution that judges, lawyers, and scholars will look to for many years to come.

Échantillon de lecture
Introduction

Day after day I see Americans—of every race, religion, nationality, and point of view—trying to resolve their differences in the courtroom. It has not always been so. In earlier times, both here and abroad, individuals and communities settled their differences not in courtrooms under law but on the streets with violence. We Americans treasure the customs and institutions that have helped us find the better way. And we not only hope but also believe that in the future we will continue to resolve disputes under law, just as surely as we will continue to hold elections for president and Congress. Our beliefs reflect the strength of our Constitution and the institutions it has created.

The Constitution’s form and language have helped it endure. The document is short—seven articles and twenty- seven amendments. It focuses primarily on our government’s structure. Its provisions form a simple coherent whole, permitting readers without technical knowledge to understand the document and the government it creates. And it traces the government’s authority directly to a single source of legitimizing power—“We the People.”

Words on paper, however, no matter how wise, are not sufficient to preserve a nation. Benjamin Franklin made this point when, in 1787, he told a Philadelphia questioner that the Constitutional Convention had created “a republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” The separate institutions that the Constitution fashioned—Congress, the executive, the judiciary—were intended to bring about a form of government that would guarantee that democracy and liberty are not empty promises. But what would enable the Constitution to work not only in theory but also in practice? How could the nation make sure that the Constitution’s limits are respected, that our citizens enjoy its important protections, that our legal system resolves disputes fairly and impartially, and that our courts dispense justice?

Alexander Hamilton, along with many of the other constitutional framers, thought that a Supreme Court would provide part of the
answer. The Court would interpret the law, thereby enforcing the Constitution’s limits. It would help ensure a democratic political system, and it would safeguard individual constitutional rights and liberties. Indeed, as the historian Gordon Wood has pointed out, “by protecting the rights of minorities of all sorts against popular majorities,” the Court would “become a major instrument for both curbing [American] democracy and maintaining it.”

In the framers’ eyes, then, the Court would help to maintain the workable democracy that the Constitution sought to create. I have previously written about the Court and democracy, explaining the ways in which that constitutional concept critically affects judicial interpretation of much of the Constitution’s language and also how the Constitution’s democratic objective assumes a public that actively participates in the nation’s political life. The present book focuses on the Supreme Court’s role in maintaining a workable constitutional system of government. It discusses how the public and the Court can help make the Constitution work well in practice. And it shows why the Constitution necessarily assumes that the typical American learns something of our nation’s history and unde…