What's Wrong with the British Constitution? - 9 Angebote vergleichen

Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, Versandkosten nach: USA.
Von Händler/Antiquariat, ProfessionalandAcademicBookstore.
Oxford University Press. PAPERBACK. 0199656452 BRAND-NEW, Unread Copy in Perfect Condition. FAST FedEx shipping (you'll receive your order within 1-5 business days after shipping in most cases*), this helps to ensure your order arrives in perfect condition. PLEASE NOTE: FedEx does not generally deliver to PO Boxes or APO addresses, so please be sure to give us a physical street address to deliver to; also, unfortunately, we cannot ship this item to Alaska or Hawaii. THANKS! *(this applies to domestic shipments within the continental US - other destinations may take longer) . New.

Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, E-Book zum download.
History, In this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both how people actually behave and how they ought to behave. In fact, it fails to do either; it is not a correct description and it has no persuasive force. The book goes on to offer a reasoned alternative.The position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one ofthose three houses. This book aims to show, contrary to the prevailing view, that the UK exists by virtue of a constitutional contract between two previously independent states. Professor McLean argues that the work of the influential constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey has little to offer those who really want to understand the nature of the constitution. Instead, greater understanding can be gleaned from considering the 'veto plays' and 'credible threats' available to politicians since 1707. He suggests that theidea that the people are sovereign dates back to the 17th century (maybe the 14th in Scotland), but has gone underground in English constitutional writing. He goes on to show that devolution and the UK's relationship with the rest of Europe have taken the UK along a constitutionalist road since 1972,and perhaps since 1920. He concludes that no intellectually defensible case can be made for retaining an unelected house of Parliament, an unelected head of state, or an established church. The book will be essential reading for political scientists, constitutional lawyers, historians, and politicians alike.

Lieferung aus: Niederlande, Vermoedelijk 2-3 weken.
bol.com.
In this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both how people actually behave and how they ought to behave. In fact, it fails to do either; it is not a correct description and it has no persuasive force. The book goes on to offer a reasoned alternative. The position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary soverei... In this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both how people actually behave and how they ought to behave. In fact, it fails to do either; it is not a correct description and it has no persuasive force. The book goes on to offer a reasoned alternative. The position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses. This book aims to show, contrary to the prevailing view, that the UK exists by virtue of a constitutional contract between two previously independent states. Professor McLean argues that the work of the influential constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey has little to offer those who really want to understand the nature of the constitution. Instead, greater understanding can be gleaned from considering the 'veto plays' and 'credible threats' available to politicians since 1707. He suggests that the idea that the people are sovereign dates back to the 17th century (maybe the 14th in Scotland), but has gone underground in English constitutional writing. He goes on to show that devolution and the UK's relationship with the rest of Europe have taken the UK along a constitutionalist road since 1972, and perhaps since 1920. He concludes that no intellectually defensible case can be made for retaining an unelected house of Parliament, an unelected head of state, or an established church. The book will be essential reading for political scientists, constitutional lawyers, historians, and politicians alike.Soort: Met illustraties;Taal: Engels;Afmetingen: 24x233x155 mm;Gewicht: 640,00 gram;Verschijningsdatum: juli 2012;Druk: 1;ISBN10: 0199656452;ISBN13: 9780199656455; Engelstalig | Paperback | 2012.

Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, Usually ships in 1-2 business days.
Von Händler/Antiquariat, VillageBookseller.
In this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both how people actually behave and how they ought to behave. In fact, it fails to do either; it is not a correct description and it has no persuasive force. The book goes on to offer a reasoned alternative. The position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses. This book aims to show, contrary to the prevailing view, that the UK exists by virtue of a constitutional contract between two previously independent states. Professor McLean argues that the work of the influential constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey has little to offer those who really want to understand the nature of the constitution. Instead, greater understanding can be gleaned from considering the 'veto plays' and 'credible threats' available to politicians since 1707. He suggests that the idea that the people are sovereign dates back to the 17th century (maybe the 14th in Scotland), but has gone underground in English constitutional writing. He goes on to show that devolution and the UK's relationship with the rest of Europe have taken the UK along a constitutionalist road since 1972, and perhaps since 1920. He concludes that no intellectually defensible case can be made for retaining an unelected house of Parliament, an unelected head of state, or an established church. The book will be essential reading for political scientists, constitutional lawyers, historians, and politicians alike. , Hardcover, Ausgabe: First Edition, First Printing, Label: Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, Produktgruppe: Book, Publiziert: 2010-01-11, Studio: Oxford University Press, Verkaufsrang: 6720740.

Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, Usually ships in 1-2 business days.
Von Händler/Antiquariat, payson books.
In this provocative new study, Iain McLean argues that the traditional story of the British constitution does not make sense. It purports to be both positive and normative: that is, to describe both how people actually behave and how they ought to behave. In fact, it fails to do either; it is not a correct description and it has no persuasive force. The book goes on to offer a reasoned alternative. The position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses. This book aims to show, contrary to the prevailing view, that the UK exists by virtue of a constitutional contract between two previously independent states. Professor McLean argues that the work of the influential constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey has little to offer those who really want to understand the nature of the constitution. Instead, greater understanding can be gleaned from considering the 'veto plays' and 'credible threats' available to politicians since 1707. He suggests that the idea that the people are sovereign dates back to the 17th century (maybe the 14th in Scotland), but has gone underground in English constitutional writing. He goes on to show that devolution and the UK's relationship with the rest of Europe have taken the UK along a constitutionalist road since 1972, and perhaps since 1920. He concludes that no intellectually defensible case can be made for retaining an unelected house of Parliament, an unelected head of state, or an established church. The book will be essential reading for political scientists, constitutional lawyers, historians, and politicians alike. , Hardcover, Ausgabe: First Edition, First Printing, Label: Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, Produktgruppe: Book, Publiziert: 2010-01-11, Studio: Oxford University Press, Verkaufsrang: 6720740.

Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, Versandkostenfrei.
Von Händler/Antiquariat, Book Deals [60506629], Lewiston, NY, U.S.A.
This Book is in Good Condition. Clean Copy With Light Amount of Wear. 100% Guaranteed. Summary: A bravura critique of the traditional interpretation of the British constitution. The book demolishes many of the myths surrounding it, but also goes on to suggest a constructive alternative.

Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, Versandkostenfrei.
Von Händler/Antiquariat, Book Deals [60506629], Lewiston, NY, U.S.A.
Brand New, Unread Copy in Perfect Condition. A+ Customer Service! Summary: A bravura critique of the traditional interpretation of the British constitution. The book demolishes many of the myths surrounding it, but also goes on to suggest a constructive alternative.

Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, Versandkostenfrei.
Von Händler/Antiquariat, Old Line Books [69491], Severna Park, MD, U.S.A.
Very Good+ to Near Fine in paperback, unread copy yet some light external wear, LOC1.

Lieferung aus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika, Lagernd, zzgl. Versandkosten.
Whats-Wrong-with-the-British-Constitution~~Iain-McLean, What's Wrong with the British Constitution?