Los americanos están orgullosos de su democracia, aunque saben que está plagada de múltiples abusos, uno de los cuales tiene que ver con el dinero. Las campañas electorales consumen enormes cantidades de dinero, en rubros como la contratación de personal, el levantamiento de encuestas y la elaboración y colocación de anuncios en periódicos y en otros medios de comunicación. Durante el año de la campaña presidencial de 1996, más de 866 millones de dólares se gastaron en estos rubros 1, pero, (...) ¿de dónde provino ese dinero? (shrink)

Minimalism is a theory, of increasing popularity in the United States in recent decades, that requires the judiciary to base its decisions on the most limited grounds available. One of its central tenets dictates that the judiciary, if at all possible, should base its rulings on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. Set in the context of the "War on Terror" and a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the rights of prisoners held in Guanta´namo, this Article seeks to identify (...) the pitfalls of such an approach to judicial decisionmaking. Specifically, it shows how minimalism has led to legislative enactments that deprive the prisoners of basic rights and that, as a practical matter, compromise the capacity of the Supreme Court ever to adequately address the prisoners’ claims. Although minimalism has been defended on the ground that it furthers democratic values, such a view reduces democracy to majoritarianism as opposed to a broad-based deliberative process that gives content to the fundamental values of the nation. It also overlooks the important and constructive role of the judiciary in that process. (shrink)

The War Against Terrorism has put into issue two tenets of the American constitutional tradition. The first denies the government the power to imprison anyone unless that person is charged with a crime and swiftly brought to trial. The other requires the government to abide by the Constitution’s restrictions on its power no matter where or against whom it acts. This article, based on the 2005 H.L.A. Hart lecture, examines the Supreme Court’s first encounter with the Administration’s conduct of the (...) War Against Terrorism and explains how the Supreme Court’s rulings badly compromised these foundational principles. (shrink)