상세정보
Export to Refworks부가기능
A Critical Analysis of Habermas's Qualified Defense of Strong Judicial Review
상세 프로파일
| 자료유형 | 학위논문 |
|---|---|
| 서명/저자사항 | A Critical Analysis of Habermas's Qualified Defense of Strong Judicial Review. |
| 개인저자 | Sprague-Rice, Aidan Michael. |
| 단체저자명 | Michigan State University. Philosophy - Doctor of Philosophy. |
| 발행사항 | [S.l.]: Michigan State University., 2019. |
| 발행사항 | Ann Arbor: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2019. |
| 형태사항 | 307 p. |
| 기본자료 저록 | Dissertations Abstracts International 81-05A. Dissertation Abstract International |
| ISBN | 9781392839300 |
| 학위논문주기 | Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2019. |
| 일반주기 |
Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-05, Section: A.
Advisor: Hedrick, Todd. |
| 이용제한사항 | This item must not be sold to any third party vendors. |
| 요약 | The question of how best to resolve constitutional indeterminacy has recently returned to prominence in American political philosophy. Jurgen Habermas's contribution to this debate, which takes the form of a qualified defense of strong judicial review, is interesting, but it has not been the subject of much scholarly attention. In this dissertation I provide a recapitulation of Habermas's account, locating it within the context of both Habermas's ambitious communication theory of society and the ongoing American debate. This accomplished, I next subject Habermas's defense of strong judicial review to critical scrutiny. Through this process I demonstrate that Habermas's defense of strong judicial review does not sit comfortably with certain main premises of his social theory. Most importantly, I show that Habermas's attempt to legitimate strong judicial review runs afoul of his contention that members of rationalized societies should be expected, on reflection, to endorse a communicative criterion for analysis of the legitimacy of legal institutions. Because history teaches that there are alternative practically realizable forms of constitutional interpretation which come closer to realizing a situation in which communicatively processed public opinion influences constitutional interpretation, Habermas's qualified defense of strong judicial review must ultimately be understood as in significant tension with his overall social theory. I conclude my account by engaging in some speculation about both why Habermas might not have noticed this and what further lines of research are suggested by this analysis. |
| 일반주제명 | Philosophy. Sociology. Law. |
| 언어 | 영어 |
| 바로가기 | 
: 이 자료의 원문은 한국교육학술정보원에서 제공합니다. |
