Grundlagar, konstitution

Grundlagarna är de högsta normerna i vår rättsordning. De fastställer de demokratiska spelreglerna och anger vilka rättigheter enskilda har gentemot staten. Genom att ändra i grundlagarna kan samhällskontraktet justeras eller helt ritas om. De regler som styr hur grundlagarna kan ändras har därför stor betydelse, vilket har blivit tydligt genom den demokratiska tillbakagång som präglat de senaste decenniernas utveckling i många länder.

Frågor om hur grundlagsändringar ska initieras, väckas och beredas har emellertid behandlats mycket sparsamt inom svensk rättsvetenskap. Huruvida domstol kan åsidosätta en grundlagsändring på grund av formella brister eller med hänvisning till ändringens sakliga innehåll har knappast berörts alls, trots att frågorna har rönt stor uppmärksamhet internationellt. I Grundlagsändringar. Rättsregler och domstolskontroll behandlas dessa hittills outforskade frågor ingående.

Sverige har flera olika grundlagar med regeringsformen som den centrala och den man avser när man talar om vårt lands skrivna författning eller konstitution. Där finns de grundläggande bestämmelserna om hur vårt statsskick är organiserat och hur vårt demokratiska system fungerar. Det är i regeringsformen som enskildas grundläggande fri- och rättigheter i förhållande till det allmänna finns. Där slås rättsstatsprincipen fast med t.ex. kraven på lagenlighet, objektivitet och självständighet vid myndighetsutövning och där finns regler som syftar till att garantera insyn och kontroll över hur den offentliga makten utövas. Regeringsformen är från 1974 men har genom ändringar som trädde i kraft den 1 januari 2011 reformerats i grunden. Reformen, som i allt väsentligt bygger på förslag som togs fram av Grundlagsutredningen, innebär dels att sakliga ändringar gjorts, dels att nästan alla paragrafer har skrivits om och moderniserats. Många har också omnumrerats. Två nya kapitel har tillkommit bl.a. ett nytt kapitel om kommunerna. Varje kapitel och paragraf kommenteras. Paragraferna är försedda med en kort ingress som förklarar hur innehållet förhåller sig till tidigare lydelse. Vidare ges paragrafvis hänvisningar till relevanta förarbeten och i förekommande fall till annan litteratur. Särskild vikt har lagts vid att ge lättillgängliga beskrivningar av komplicerade frågor som t.ex. förhållandet till EU och den statliga budgetprocessen. Boken vänder sig i första hand till praktiskt verksamma jurister men även till bl.a. statsvetare, ekonomer, personer verksamma inom offentlig förvaltning, m.fl. Författarna är alla domstolsjurister med bred erfarenhet från lagstiftningsarbete och offentlig förvaltning i övrigt. De deltog samtliga i Grundlagsutredningens arbete. Anders Eka, justitieråd, huvudsekreterare i Grundlagsutredningen Johan Hirschfeldt, f.d. hovrättspresident, ledamot av Grundlagsutredningen Henrik Jermsten, justitieråd, sakkunnig i Grundlagsutredningen Kristina Svahn Starrsjö, justitieråd, sakkunnig i Grundlagsutredningen

Statsrätten och folkrätten har många beröringspunkter. Regeringsformens regler om krig och krigsfara är beroende av den internationella humanitära rätten, fri- och rättigheterna i RF 2 kap. har sina motsvarigheter i internationella dokument, i regeringsformen finns regler om hur Sverige blir bundet av folkrättsliga traktat och övervakning av folkrättsliga förbud kan ske av inhemska, statsrättsliga organ. Det finns fler exempel. Syftet med denna bok är att belysa likheter och ömsesidiga beroenden samt att dra paralleller mellan de båda rättsordningarna. Boken är i första hand tänkt som kurslitteratur, men den bör även kunna läsas av alla med ett intresse för skärningspunkten mellan statsrätt och folkrätt. Per Ahlin är docent och universitetslektor i folkrätt vid Stockholms

Av Sveriges fyra grundlagar är regeringsformen den viktigaste. I den här boken ger författarna en överblick, identifierar de stora utvecklingstrenderna och går igenom regeringsformens alla kapitel – paragraf för paragraf. Alla centrala delar av svensk demokratis rättsliga reglering belyses såsom riksdagens ställning, regeringens förhållande till myndigheterna, enskildas rättighetsskydd och domstolarnas ställning och uppgifter.Regeringsformen erbjuder en användarvänlig genomgång av regerings­formens bestämmelser och ger en koncis och komplett bild av grundlagsregleringen av vårt statsskick. Denna femte upplaga är uppdaterad med ny rättspraxis och ny lagstiftning. Med sin lättillgängliga framställning vänder den sig till studenter inom juridik och samhällsvetenskap, till praktiskt verksamma inom områden som berörs av grundlagen och även till allmänt intresserade läsare.

Denna författningssamling innehåller svensk och europeisk lagtext som används på kursen i Statsrätt vid Juridiska Institutionen, Stockholms universitet. Författningssamlingen omfattar våra fyra grundlagar, dvs. RF, TF, YGL och SO, samt riksdagsordningen och annan svensk lagstiftning som kompletterar eller ansluter till dessa författningar. Den innehåller dessutom Europakonventionen, som är aktuell både som europarätt och som svensk lag, samt EU:s unionsfördrag, funktionsfördrag, rättighetsstadga och protokoll om tillämpning av subsidiaritet- och proportionalitetsprinciperna.

Samlingen är primärt avsedd för kurser i europarätt och statsrätt på universitetsnivå, särskilt med avseende på kursen i statsrätt vid Juridiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet. Den kan givetvis också utgöra ett hjälpmedel för yrkesverksamma jurister och andra som kommer i kontakt med europarättsliga och statsrättsliga frågor.

Denna åttonde upplaga innehåller aktuell lagstiftning per 1 juli 2025.

Expert guidance for navigating the difficult new issues around free speech rights in higher education  In their earlier book, Free Speech on Campus, Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman argued that colleges and universities should permit the expression of the widest possible range of views. Nearly ten tumultuous years later, many issues have arisen that this simple principle does not adequately address. To what extent must an institution provide expensive security for extremely controversial speakers? Should colleges and universities defend faculty, students, or administrators who find themselves the victims of social media firestorms? How should they handle the expression of controversial views or the use of offensive language in classrooms? May academic departments or other administrative units—or an entire school—take positions on controversial political issues? What rules should exist around campus protests or disruptive activities? How should we assess government efforts to control faculty speech or curricular choices? In Campus Speech and Academic Freedom, two law professors and university administrators who have confronted these questions for years draw on their extensive real-world experience to help campus leaders, campus communities, government officials, and the public better understand and address the contentious issues surrounding campus speech.

In a revelatory work praised as “excellent and timely” (New York Times Book Review, front page), Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight, once again makes sense of our fraught constitutional history in this incisive portrait of how American businesses seized political power, won “equal rights,” and transformed the Constitution to serve big business.Uncovering the deep roots of Citizens United, he repositions that controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision as the capstone of a centuries-old battle for corporate personhood. “Tackling a topic that ought to be at the heart of political debate” (Economist), Winkler surveys more than four hundred years of diverse cases—and the contributions of such legendary legal figures as Daniel Webster, Roger Taney, Lewis Powell, and even Thurgood Marshall—to reveal that “the history of corporate rights is replete with ironies” (Wall Street Journal). We the Corporations is an uncompromising work of history to be read for years to come.

A Forbes Best Higher Education Book of the YearFrom renowned legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein, a concise, case-by-case guide to resolving free-speech dilemmas at colleges and universities.Free speech is indispensable on college campuses: allowing varied views and frank exchanges of opinion is a core component of the educational enterprise and the pursuit of truth. But free speech does not mean a free-for-all. The First Amendment prohibits “abridging the freedom of speech,” yet laws against perjury or bribery, for example, are still constitutional. In the same way, valuing freedom of speech does not stop a university from regulating speech when doing so is necessary for its educational mission. So where is the dividing line? How can we distinguish reasonable restrictions from impermissible infringement?In this pragmatic, no-nonsense explainer, Cass Sunstein takes us through a wide range of scenarios involving students, professors, and administrators. He discusses why it’s consistent with the First Amendment to punish students who shout down a speaker, but not those who chant offensive slogans; why a professor cannot be fired for writing a politically charged op-ed, yet a university might legitimately consider an applicant’s political views when deciding whether to hire her. He explains why private universities are not legally bound by the First Amendment yet should, in most cases, look to follow it. And he addresses the thorny question of whether a university should officially take sides on public issues or deliberately keep the institution outside the fray.At a time when universities are assailed on free-speech grounds from both left and right, Campus Free Speech: A Pocket Guide is an indispensable resource for cutting through the noise and understanding the key issues animating the debates.

Como tantas millones de personas, Nelson A. Castillo llegó a los Estados Unidos de la mano de su familia, en busca de una mejor vida. Su experiencia y luego su formación como abogado de inmigración se han combinado en La Tarjeta Verde para brindar una fuente de información clara y accesible para los inmigrantes que quieren llegar a conseguir la residencia permanente en este país. En La Tarjeta Verde encontrará descripciones claras sobre temas esenciales, incluyendo:• las diferentes maneras de obtener la residencia• la importancia de la representación legal• los tipos de peticiones• los casos de inmigrantes especiales• el sistema de loterías No es suficiente tener el deseo de convertirse en residente. Hay que planificar. Nelson A. Castillo sabe de primera mano lo difícil que puede ser empezar una nueva vida en este país, por eso ha volcado todo su conocimiento en La Tarjeta Verde para que nadie pueda tomar ventaja de un inmigrante por su falta de información. Aquí está todo lo que necesita saber para entender cómo funciona el sistema y cómo debe prepararse. Siga estos consejos ¡y abra el camino hacia el mundo de oportunidades que le brindará su tarjeta verde!

An eye-opening account of how Americans came to revere the Constitution and what this reverence has meant domestically and around the world.Some Americans today worry that the Federal Constitution is ill-equipped to respond to mounting democratic threats and may even exacerbate the worst features of American politics. Yet for as long as anyone can remember, the Constitution has occupied a quasi-mythical status in American political culture, which ties ideals of liberty and equality to assumptions about the inherent goodness of the text’s design. The Constitutional Bind explores how a flawed document came to be so glorified and how this has impacted American life. In a pathbreaking retelling of the American experience, Aziz Rana shows that today’s reverential constitutional culture is a distinctively twentieth-century phenomenon. Rana connects this widespread idolization to another relatively recent development: the rise of US global dominance. Ultimately, such veneration has had far-reaching consequences: despite offering a unifying language of reform, it has also unleashed an interventionist national security state abroad while undermining the possibility of deeper change at home. Revealing how the current constitutional order was forged over the twentieth century, The Constitutional Bind also sheds light on an array of movement activists—in Black, Indigenous, feminist, labor, and immigrant politics—who struggled to imagine different constitutional horizons. As time passed, these voices of opposition were excised from memory. Today, they offer essential insights.

In the course of exempting religious, educational, and charitable organizations from federal income tax, section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code requires them to refrain from campaign speech and much speech to influence legislation. These speech restrictions have seemed merely technical adjustments, which prevent the political use of a tax subsidy. But the cultural and legal realities are more disturbing. Tracing the history of American liberalism, including theological liberalism and its expression in nativism, Hamburger shows the centrality of turbulent popular anxieties about the Catholic Church and other potentially orthodox institutions. He argues persuasively that such theopolitical fears about the political speech of churches and related organizations underlay the adoption, in 1934 and 1954, of section 501(c)(3)'s speech limits. He thereby shows that the speech restrictions have been part of a broad majority assault on minority rights and that they are grossly unconstitutional. Along the way, Hamburger explores the role of the Ku Klux Klan and other nativist organizations, the development of American theology, and the cultural foundations of liberal "democratic" political theory. He also traces important legal developments such as the specialization of speech rights and the use of law to homogenize beliefs. Ultimately, he examines a wide range of contemporary speech restrictions and the growing shallowness of public life in America. His account is an unflinching look at the complex history of American liberalism and at the implications for speech, the diversity of belief, and the nation's future.

The 2016 presidential election campaign and its aftermath have underscored worrisome trends in the present state of our democracy: the extreme polarization of the electorate, the dismissal of people with opposing views, and the widespread acceptance and circulation of one-sided and factually erroneous information. Only a small proportion of those who are eligible actually vote, and a declining number of citizens actively participate in local community activities. In Flunking Democracy, Michael A. Rebell makes the case that this is not a recent problem, but rather that for generations now, America's schools have systematically failed to prepare students to be capable citizens. Rebell analyzes the causes of this failure, provides a detailed analysis of what we know about how to prepare students for productive citizenship, and considers examples of best practices. Rebell further argues that this civic decline is also a legal failure--a gross violation of both federal and state constitutions that can only be addressed by the courts. Flunking Democracy concludes with specific recommendations for how the courts can and should address this deficiency, and is essential reading for anyone interested in education, the law, and democratic society.

Americans tend to believe in government that is transparent and accountable. Those who govern us work for us, and therefore they must also answer to us. But how do we reconcile calls for greater accountability with the competing need for secrecy, especially in matters of national security? Those two imperatives are usually taken to be antithetical, but Heidi Kitrosser argues convincingly that this is not the case-and that our concern ought to lie not with secrecy, but with the sort of unchecked secrecy that can result from "presidentialism," or constitutional arguments for broad executive control of information. In Reclaiming Accountability, Kitrosser traces presidentialism from its start as part of a decades-old legal movement through its appearance during the Bush and Obama administrations, demonstrating its effects on secrecy throughout. Taking readers through the key presidentialist arguments-including "supremacy" and "unitary executive theory"-she explains how these arguments misread the Constitution in a way that is profoundly at odds with democratic principles. Kitrosser's own reading offers a powerful corrective, showing how the Constitution provides myriad tools, including the power of Congress and the courts to enforce checks on presidential power, through which we could reclaim government accountability.

The Bank of the United States sparked several rounds of intense debate over the meaning of the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes the federal government to make laws that are “necessary” for exercising its other powers. Our standard account of the national bank controversy, however, is incomplete. The controversy was much more dynamic than a two-sided debate over a single constitutional provision and was shaped as much by politics as by law.With Reconstructing the National Bank Controversy, Eric Lomazoff offers a far more robust account of the constitutional politics of national banking between 1791 and 1832. During that time, three forces—changes within the Bank itself, growing tension over federal power within the Republican coalition, and the endurance of monetary turmoil beyond the War of 1812 —drove the development of our first major debate over the scope of federal power at least as much as the formal dimensions of the Constitution or the absence of a shared legal definition for the word “necessary.” These three forces—sometimes alone, sometimes in combination—repeatedly reshaped the terms on which the Bank’s constitutionality was contested. Lomazoff documents how these three dimensions of the polity changed over time and traces the manner in which they periodically led federal officials to adjust their claims about the Bank’s constitutionality. This includes the emergence of the Coinage Clause—which gives Congress power to “coin money, regulate the value thereof”—as a novel justification for the institution. He concludes the book by explaining why a more robust account of the national bank controversy can help us understand the constitutional basis for modern American monetary politics.

The Bank of the United States sparked several rounds of intense debate over the meaning of the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes the federal government to make laws that are “necessary” for exercising its other powers. Our standard account of the national bank controversy, however, is incomplete. The controversy was much more dynamic than a two-sided debate over a single constitutional provision and was shaped as much by politics as by law.With Reconstructing the National Bank Controversy, Eric Lomazoff offers a far more robust account of the constitutional politics of national banking between 1791 and 1832. During that time, three forces—changes within the Bank itself, growing tension over federal power within the Republican coalition, and the endurance of monetary turmoil beyond the War of 1812 —drove the development of our first major debate over the scope of federal power at least as much as the formal dimensions of the Constitution or the absence of a shared legal definition for the word “necessary.” These three forces—sometimes alone, sometimes in combination—repeatedly reshaped the terms on which the Bank’s constitutionality was contested. Lomazoff documents how these three dimensions of the polity changed over time and traces the manner in which they periodically led federal officials to adjust their claims about the Bank’s constitutionality. This includes the emergence of the Coinage Clause—which gives Congress power to “coin money, regulate the value thereof”—as a novel justification for the institution. He concludes the book by explaining why a more robust account of the national bank controversy can help us understand the constitutional basis for modern American monetary politics.

Colorado’s legalization of marijuana spurred intense debate about the extent to which the Constitution preempts state-enacted laws and statutes. Colorado’s legal cannabis program generated a strange scenario in which many politicians, including many who freely invoke the Tenth Amendment, seemed to be attacking the progressive state for asserting states’ rights. Unusual as this may seem, this has happened before—in the early part of the twentieth century, as America concluded a decades-long struggle over the suppression of alcohol during Prohibition.            Sean Beienburg recovers a largely forgotten constitutional debate, revealing how Prohibition became a battlefield on which skirmishes of American political development, including the debate over federalism and states’ rights, were fought. Beienburg focuses on the massive extension of federal authority involved in Prohibition and the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, describing the roles and reactions of not just Congress, the presidents, and the Supreme Court but political actors throughout the states, who jockeyed with one another to claim fidelity to the Tenth Amendment while reviling nationalism and nullification alike. The most comprehensive treatment of the constitutional debate over Prohibition to date, the book concludes with a discussion of the parallels and differences between Prohibition in the 1920s and debates about the legalization of marijuana today.

In 1783, as the Revolutionary War came to a close, Alexander Hamilton resigned in disgust from the Continental Congress after it refused to consider a fundamental reform of the Articles of Confederation. Just four years later, that same government collapsed, and Congress grudgingly agreed to support the 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, which altered the Articles beyond recognition. What occurred during this remarkably brief interval to cause the Confederation to lose public confidence and inspire Americans to replace it with a dramatically more flexible and powerful government? We Have Not a Government is the story of this contentious moment in American history.In George William Van Cleve's book, we encounter a sharply divided America. The Confederation faced massive war debts with virtually no authority to compel its members to pay them. It experienced punishing trade restrictions and strong resistance to American territorial expansion from powerful European governments. Bitter sectional divisions that deadlocked the Continental Congress arose from exploding western settlement. And a deep, long-lasting recession led to sharp controversies and social unrest across the country amid roiling debates over greatly increased taxes, debt relief, and paper money. Van Cleve shows how these remarkable stresses transformed the Confederation into a stalemate government and eventually led previously conflicting states, sections, and interest groups to advocate for a union powerful enough to govern a continental empire.Touching on the stories of a wide-ranging cast of characters--including John Adams, Patrick Henry, Daniel Shays, George Washington, and Thayendanegea--Van Cleve makes clear that it was the Confederation's failures that created a political crisis and led to the 1787 Constitution. Clearly argued and superbly written, We Have Not a Government is a must-read history of this crucial period in our nation's early life.

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.  This year’s volume features prominent scholars assessing major legal events, including:  Mark Tushnet on President Trump’s “Muslim Ban”Kate Andrias on Union Fees in the Public SectorCass R. Sunstein on Chevron without ChevronTracey Maclin on the Fourth Amendment and Unauthorized DriversFrederick Schauer on PrecedentPamela Karlan on Gay Equality and Racial EqualityRandall Kennedy on Palmer v. ThompsonLisa Marshall Manheim and Elizabeth G. Porter on Voter SuppressionMelissa Murray on Masterpiece CakeshopVikram David Amar on CommandeeringLaura K. Donohue on Carpenter, Precedent, and OriginalismEvan Caminker on Carpenter and Stability

States of Exception in American History brings to light the remarkable number of instances since the Founding in which the protections of the Constitution have been overridden, held in abeyance, or deliberately weakened for certain members of the polity. In the United States, derogations from the rule of law seem to have been a feature of—not a bug in—the constitutional system.The first comprehensive account of the politics of exceptions and emergencies in the history of the United States, this book weaves together historical studies of moments and spaces of exception with conceptual analyses of emergency, the state of exception, sovereignty, and dictatorship. The Civil War, the Great Depression, and the Cold War figure prominently in the essays; so do Francis Lieber, Frederick Douglass, John Dewey, Clinton Rossiter, and others who explored whether it was possible for the United States to survive states of emergency without losing its democratic way. States of Exception combines political theory and the history of political thought with histories of race and political institutions. It is both inspired by and illuminating of the American experience with constitutional rule in the age of terror and Trump.

States of Exception in American History brings to light the remarkable number of instances since the Founding in which the protections of the Constitution have been overridden, held in abeyance, or deliberately weakened for certain members of the polity. In the United States, derogations from the rule of law seem to have been a feature of—not a bug in—the constitutional system.The first comprehensive account of the politics of exceptions and emergencies in the history of the United States, this book weaves together historical studies of moments and spaces of exception with conceptual analyses of emergency, the state of exception, sovereignty, and dictatorship. The Civil War, the Great Depression, and the Cold War figure prominently in the essays; so do Francis Lieber, Frederick Douglass, John Dewey, Clinton Rossiter, and others who explored whether it was possible for the United States to survive states of emergency without losing its democratic way. States of Exception combines political theory and the history of political thought with histories of race and political institutions. It is both inspired by and illuminating of the American experience with constitutional rule in the age of terror and Trump.