This major history of judicial review, revised to include the Rehnquist court, shows how modern courts have used their power to create new 'rights with fateful political consequences.' Originally published by Basic Books.

Rooted in Western classical and medieval philosophies, the natural law movement of the last few decades seeks to rediscover fundamental moral truths. In this book, prominent thinkers demonstrate how natural law can be used to resolve a wide range of complex social, political, and constitutional issues by addressing controversial subjects that include the family, taxation, war, racial discrimination, medical technology, and sexuality. This volume will be of value to those working in philosophy, political science, and legal theory, as well as to policy analysts, legislators, and judges.

Prominent constitutional scholar Christopher Wolfe challenges popular opinions by presenting an insightful and well-supported defense of originalist interpretations of the Constitution. He describes the traditional approach to constitutional interpretation and judicial review and then focuses his analysis on the due process clause, which has become the source of most modern constitutional law. Wolfe challenges the most influential defenders of judicial activism, including Laurence Tribe, Michael Dorf, Harry Wellington, and Mark Tushnet, and he persuasively explains the dire political consequences of taking the Constitution out of constitutional law.

In this revised and updated edition of a classic text, one of America's leading constitutional theorists presents a brief but well-balanced history of judicial review and summarizes the arguments both for and against judicial activism within the context of American democracy. Christopher Wolfe demonstrates how modern courts have used their power to create new "rights" with fateful political consequences and he challenges popular opinions held by many contemporary legal scholars. This is important reading for anyone interested in the role of the judiciary within American politics. Praise for the first edition of Judicial Activism: "This is a splendid contribution to the literature, integrating for the first time between two covers an extensive debate, honestly and dispassionately presented, on the role of courts in American policy. -Stanley C. Brubaker, Colgate University

"Basic series in American government"--Jacket. Includes indexes. Bibliography: p. 357-380.

Liberal political philosophy and natural law theory are not contradictory, but - properly understood - mutually reinforcing. Contemporary liberalism (as represented by Rawls, Guttman and Thompson, Dworkin, Raz, and Macedo) rejects natural law and seeks to diminish its historical contribution to the liberal political tradition, but it is only one, defective variant of liberalism. A careful analysis of the history of liberalism, identifying its core principles, and a similar examination of classical natural law theory (as represented by Thomas Aquinas and his intellectual descendants), show that a natural law liberalism is possible and desirable. Natural law theory embraces the key principles of liberalism, and it also provides balance in resisting some of its problematic tendencies. Natural law liberalism is the soundest basis for American public philosophy, and it is a potentially more attractive and persuasive form of liberalism for nations that have tended to resist it.

The role of the United States Supreme Court has been deeply controversial throughout American history. Should the Court undertake the task of guarding a wide variety of controversial and often unenumerated rights? Or should it confine itself to enforcing specific constitutional provisions, leaving other issues (even those of rights) to the democratic process? That Eminent Tribunal brings together a distinguished group of legal scholars and political scientists who argue that the Court's power has exceeded its appropriate bounds, and that sound republican principles require greater limits on that power. They reach this conclusion by an interesting variety of paths, and despite varied political convictions. Some of the essays debate the explicit claims to constitutional authority laid out by the Supreme Court itself in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and similar cases, and others focus on the defenses of judicial authority found commonly in legal scholarship (e.g., the allegedly superior moral reasoning of judges, or judges' supposed track record of superior political decision making). The authors find these arguments wanting and contend that the principles of republicanism and the contemporary form of judicial review exercised by the Supreme Court are fundamentally incompatible. The contributors include Hadley Arkes, Gerard V. Bradley, George Liebmann, Michael McConnell, Robert F. Nagel, Jack Wade Nowlin, Steven D. Smith, Jeremy Waldron, Keith E. Whittington, Christopher Wolfe, and Michael P. Zuckert.

This collection of essays explores the relationship between religion and politics, with an emphasis on liberal democracy and Catholicism. Also includes a discussion of Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration and Tocqueville's timeless essay Democracy in America.