Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:23:15.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law and the Sacred. Edited by Austin Sarat, Lawrence Douglas and Martha Merrill Umphrey. Stanford University Press2007. Pp. 193. $45.00. ISBN: 0-804-75575-2.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Brannon P. Denning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , 2008 , pp. 723 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America vol. 1, 280 (Bradley, Philips ed., Alfred A. Knopf 1945)Google Scholar (“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.”).

2. Levinson, Sanford, Constitutional Faith (Princeton U. Press 1989)Google Scholar.

3. 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (invalidating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because in passing it Congress had impermissibly attempted to redefine the scope of constitutional rights recognized by the Court, as opposed to creating remedies to enforce those rights recognized by the Court).

4. 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (purporting to reaffirm the holding in Roe v. Wade and calling for a halt in attempts to persuade the Court to revisit its previous decision).

5. 531 U.S. 98(2000).

6. Compare Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)Google Scholar (holding that the President did not have authority to establish military commissions to try suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but inviting Congress to authorize such commissions) with Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229. (2008) (invalidating the Military Commissions Act's suspension of habeas corpus for prisoners held in Cuba).

7. Meese, Edwin III, The Law of the Constitution, 61 Tul. L. Rev. 979 (1987)Google Scholar. For a sampling of reactions to Meese's speech, see Levinson, Sanford, Could Meese Be Right This Time?, 61 Tul. L. Rev. 1071, 1074–1076 (1987)Google Scholar.

8. See e.g. Kramer, Larry D., The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (Oxford U. Press 2004)Google Scholar; Tushnet, Mark, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (Princeton U. Press 1999)Google Scholar.

9. Bickel, Alexander M., The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress 179–180 (Harper & Row 1970)Google Scholar.

10. 531 U.S. 98(2000).

11. Matt 22:21 (“Then saith he unto them, ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.’”) (All Biblical citations are taken from the KJV.).