| Summary: | CHDS State/Local === Political responses to terrorism in the United States and the international community have been to place limitations upon and/or to suspend civil liberties. Since constraining civil liberties may lead to the spread of terror, balancing the competing interests of individual civil liberties and public safety/security measures imposed by government in times of national emergency is essential to reducing terrorism and to the pursuit of peace. Constitutional courts both federal and state through the mechanism of judicial review serve to guard civil liberties against government encroachment. Yet, some scholars decry judicial review as counter-majoritarian, an illegitimate and undemocratic exercise in a representative democracy, while others laud judicial review as an essential function to advance peace, public participation in governing and legitimating democracy's quest to reduce terrorism. This thesis seeks to transcend the debate over judicial review by exploring the views of State Supreme Court Justices on what factors they consider essential to consider when balancing the competing interests. It invites the reader to engage a global discourse. To participate in the political spaces, judges operate to accept that because judicial review offers an alternative to the sword, it is material and relevant to reducing terrorism and that by focusing on the signals, the justices send the public might respond adequately to preserve human dignity during the global war on terror and beyond.
|
|---|
