Owen Fiss – författare

In Why We Vote, renowned legal scholar Owen Fiss offers a bold and daring reconstruction of judicial doctrine that gives expression to the democratic aspirations of the US Constitution. Fiss argues that embedded within the Constitution is a commitment to democracy, and that over the course of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court brought to fruition the principle that allows those who are ruled to choose their rulers. Each chapter focuses on Supreme Court cases that enlarged the freedom that democracy generates. Fiss points to rulings that allowed citizens to vote, facilitated the exercise of their right to vote, ensured the equality of votes, and provided feasible access to the ballot for independent candidates and new political parties. He celebrates these decisions and at the same time insists upon shifting the ground upon which these decisions rest--from equal protection of the laws to the recognition of a federal constitutional right to vote. Given the threat of democratic backsliding in a nation that has the world's oldest democratic constitution, Fiss's analysis and message are more important than ever.

Professor Fiss examines contemporary free-speech issues in the context of the collision of liberal ideas of equality and freedom with modern social structures and speculates on what role the state might play in furthering robust public debate.

How free is the speech of someone who can't be heard? Not very--and this, Owen Fiss suggests, is where the First Amendment comes in. In this book, a marvel of conciseness and eloquence, Fiss reframes the debate over free speech to reflect the First Amendment's role in ensuring public debate that is, in Justice William Brennan's words, truly "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."Hate speech, pornography, campaign spending, funding for the arts: the heated, often overheated, struggle over these issues generally pits liberty, as embodied in the First Amendment, against equality, as in the Fourteenth. Fiss presents a democratic view of the First Amendment that transcends this opposition. If equal participation is a precondition of free and open public debate, then the First Amendment encompasses the values of both equality and liberty.By examining the silencing effects of speech--its power to overwhelm and intimidate the underfunded, underrepresented, or disadvantaged voice--Fiss shows how restrictions on political expenditures, hate speech, and pornography can be defended in terms of the First Amendment, not despite it. Similarly, when the state requires the media to air voices of opposition, or funds art that presents controversial or challenging points of view, it is doing its constitutional part to protect democratic self-rule from the aggregations of private power that threaten it.Where most liberal accounts cast the state as the enemy of freedom and the First Amendment as a restraint, this one reminds us that the state can also be the friend of freedom, protecting and fostering speech that might otherwise die unheard, depriving our democracy of the full range and richness of its expression.

Pillars of Justice explores the purpose and possibilities of life in the law through moving accounts of thirteen lawyers who shaped the legal world during the past half century.Some, such as Thurgood Marshall, were Supreme Court Justices. Others, like John Doar and Burke Marshall, set the civil rights policies of the federal government during the 1960s. Some, including Harry Kalven and Catharine MacKinnon, have taught at the greatest law schools of the nation and nourished the liberalism rooted in the civil rights era. Jurists from abroad—Aharon Barak, for example—were responsible for the rise of the human rights movement that today carries the burden of advancing liberal values. These lawyers came from diverse backgrounds and held various political views. What unites them is a deep, abiding commitment to Brown v. Board of Education as an exceptional moment in the life of the law—a willingness to move mountains, if need be, to ensure that we are living up to our best selves. In tracing how these lawyers over a period of fifty years used the Brown ruling and its spirit as a beacon to guide their endeavors, this history tells the epic story of the liberal tradition in the law.For Owen Fiss, one of the country’s leading constitutional theorists, the people described were mentors, colleagues, friends. In his portraits, Fiss tries to identify the unique qualities of mind and character that made these individuals so important to the institutions and legal principles they served.

After decades of hand-wringing and well-intentioned efforts to improve inner cities, ghettos remain places of degrading poverty with few jobs, much crime, failing schools, and dilapidated housing. Stepping around fruitless arguments over whether or not ghettos are dysfunctional communities that exacerbate poverty, and beyond modest proposals to ameliorate their problems, one of America's leading experts on civil rights gives us a stunning but commonsensical solution: give residents the means to leave. Inner cities, writes Owen Fiss, are structures of subordination. The only way to end the poverty they transmit across generations is to help people move out of them--and into neighborhoods with higher employment rates and decent schools. Based on programs tried successfully in Chicago and elsewhere, Fiss's proposal is for a provocative national policy initiative that would give inner-city residents rent vouchers so they can move to better neighborhoods. This would end at last the informal segregation, by race and income, of our metropolitan regions.Given the government's role in creating and maintaining segregation, Fiss argues, justice demands no less than such sweeping federal action. To sample the heated controversy that Fiss's ideas will ignite, the book includes ten responses from scholars, journalists, and practicing lawyers. Some endorse Fiss's proposal in general terms but take issue with particulars. Others concur with his diagnosis of the problem but argue that his policy response is wrongheaded. Still others accuse Fiss of underestimating the internal strength of inner-city communities as well as the hostility of white suburbs. Fiss's bold views should set off a debate that will help shape urban social policy into the foreseeable future. It is indispensable reading for anyone interested in social justice, domestic policy, or the fate of our cities.

Professor Fiss examines contemporary free-speech issues in the context of the collision of liberal ideas of equality and freedom with modern social structures and speculates on what role the state might play in furthering robust public debate.

The Law As It Could Be gathers Fiss's most important work on procedure, adjudication and public reason, introduced by the author and including contextual introductions for each piece—some of which are among the most cited in Twentieth Century legal studies. Fiss surveys the legal terrain between the landmark cases of Brown v. Board of Education and Bush v. Gore to reclaim the legal legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. He argues forcefully for a vision of judges as instruments of public reason and of the courts as a means of shaping society in the image of the Constitution.In building his argument, Fiss attends to topics as diverse as the use of the injunction to restructure social institutions; how law and economics have misunderstood the role of the judge; why the movement seeking alternatives to adjudication fails to serve the public interest; and why Bush v. Gore was not the constitutional crisis some would have us believe. In so doing, Fiss reveals a vision of adjudication that vindicates the public reason on which Brown v. Board of Education was founded.

The Law As It Could Be gathers Fiss's most important work on procedure, adjudication and public reason, introduced by the author and including contextual introductions for each piece—some of which are among the most cited in Twentieth Century legal studies. Fiss surveys the legal terrain between the landmark cases of Brown v. Board of Education and Bush v. Gore to reclaim the legal legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. He argues forcefully for a vision of judges as instruments of public reason and of the courts as a means of shaping society in the image of the Constitution.In building his argument, Fiss attends to topics as diverse as the use of the injunction to restructure social institutions; how law and economics have misunderstood the role of the judge; why the movement seeking alternatives to adjudication fails to serve the public interest; and why Bush v. Gore was not the constitutional crisis some would have us believe. In so doing, Fiss reveals a vision of adjudication that vindicates the public reason on which Brown v. Board of Education was founded.