Add to ORKGA critical component of a liberal democracy\u27s counterterrorism efforts is the role of that nation\u27s judiciary. The concept of an unfettered executive, unrestrained by courts and legislatures alike, is detrimental to a nation attempting to balance national security and individual rights. The authors analyze whether, and how, the courts in the United States and Israel truly review executive decisions regarding armed conflict by analyzing decisions of the two Supreme Courts and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist\u27s and President Barak\u27s writings
I see my role as a judge of a supreme court in a democracy as the protection of the constitution and...
The Israeli situation offers an interesting case study for inquiring whether courts are ‘friend or f...
This article examines the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism, and contrasts the diff...
A critical component of a liberal democracy\u27s counterterrorism efforts is the role of that nation...
This Article discusses the United States\u27 commitment to constitutional governance and the account...
Three years after an attack that traumatized the nation and prompted massive military and law-enforc...
The President of the Supreme Court of Israel, in his 2001 Justice Matthew 0. Tobriner Memorial Lectu...
The Bush and Obama administrations have pursued a military campaign during the War on Terror in whic...
This Article evaluates the legacy of Israel's Supreme Court former Chief Justice Aharon Barak with r...
One of the central debates on the Israeli political scene in 2005 was the public controversy between...
The Supreme Courts of Israel and the United States treat cases involving national security radically...
In thinking about what I might say on the topic of civil liberties after 9/11, an idea that occurred...
The aim of the first section is to examine the judiciary\u27s contribution to executive hegemony in ...
The Author examines the Supreme Court’s use of “preferential judicial activism”—whereby justices dec...
American constitutional theory faces a dilemma. The United States Supreme Court has decided a large ...
I see my role as a judge of a supreme court in a democracy as the protection of the constitution and...
The Israeli situation offers an interesting case study for inquiring whether courts are ‘friend or f...
This article examines the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism, and contrasts the diff...
A critical component of a liberal democracy\u27s counterterrorism efforts is the role of that nation...
This Article discusses the United States\u27 commitment to constitutional governance and the account...
Three years after an attack that traumatized the nation and prompted massive military and law-enforc...
The President of the Supreme Court of Israel, in his 2001 Justice Matthew 0. Tobriner Memorial Lectu...
The Bush and Obama administrations have pursued a military campaign during the War on Terror in whic...
This Article evaluates the legacy of Israel's Supreme Court former Chief Justice Aharon Barak with r...
One of the central debates on the Israeli political scene in 2005 was the public controversy between...
The Supreme Courts of Israel and the United States treat cases involving national security radically...
In thinking about what I might say on the topic of civil liberties after 9/11, an idea that occurred...
The aim of the first section is to examine the judiciary\u27s contribution to executive hegemony in ...
The Author examines the Supreme Court’s use of “preferential judicial activism”—whereby justices dec...
American constitutional theory faces a dilemma. The United States Supreme Court has decided a large ...
I see my role as a judge of a supreme court in a democracy as the protection of the constitution and...
The Israeli situation offers an interesting case study for inquiring whether courts are ‘friend or f...
This article examines the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism, and contrasts the diff...