http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27162 Sat, 04 Apr 2026 01:47:12 GMT 2026-04-04T01:47:12Z https://dspace.uni.lodz.pl:443/bitstream/id/f69509ef-8e92-440b-9542-8d85ad9963e8/ http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27162 http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27336 Javier Sicilia: Advocate of deliberative democracy in the Americas Rathbun, Lyon When Javier Sicilia’s son was killed by cartel assassins in 2011, he transformed into a civic activist, with a mass following sufficiently large for Time Magazine to recognize him in 2011 as one of its “Protestors of the Year.” His very success mobilizing public opinion against cartel violence overshadows his more fundamental role as an advocate for deliberative democracy in the Americas. Sicilia’s historical importance lies in his recognition that only civic dialogue within the transnational public sphere that includes Mexico and the United States can heal the social pathologies unleashed by globalization and by the war on drugs. His ultimate achievement has been to dramatize what would be required of citizens to realize the democratic ideals that both countries profess as the foundations of their national identities. Mon, 01 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27336 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27337 Editorial Rehman, Sharaf N. Mon, 01 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27337 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27335 An analysis of U.S. Custom and Border Protection’s tripartite Mexico border security policy Garrett, Terence M. The Custom and Border Protection (CBP) border security policy was explicitly presented by former Acting Commissioner of CBP, David Aguilar, in testimony before the United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) on April 4, 2017 in testimony on the subject of “Fencing Along the Southwest Border.” Important for discussion here are the key components of the DHS/CBP/Border Patrol’s strategy, or sets of policies, laying forth elements of the border walls (including barriers, fences), personnel, and technology in order to hinder, or intercept, undocumented migrants (homo sacer) from entering the United States illegally—all socially constructed. Aguilar notes in his opening remarks “Maintaining a safe and secure environment along the U.S.—Mexico border is critical. A safe and orderly border that is predicated on the strong rule of law deprives criminal organizations, drug cartels, and criminal individuals the opportunity to thrive.” In Aguilar’s testimony, when pressed by Ranking Member Senator Claire McCaskill, he set forth the current needs for CBP/Border Patrol priority of the three elements in the following order: (1) Technology (border surveillance), (2) Personnel (numbers of agents along the border), and, (3) The Border Wall (physical infrastructure: fences, walls, and vehicle barriers). The security apparatus affects dwellers along the Rio Grande and undocumented border crossers, demonstrated here with an analysis of the application of President Trump’s Zero Tolerance policy (April 6–June 20, 2018). The security framework applied in this paper will consist of theoretical approaches assessing border surveillance as a panopticon, the use of Border Patrol agents for apprehending, detaining and removing homo sacer, and the symbolism of the border wall as a spectacle and simulacrum—all understood in the pursuit of USA border security policy. Mon, 01 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27335 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27334 U.S. Supreme Court in the civil rights era: Deliberative Democracy and its educative institutional role, 1950s–1970s Figueroa, Carlos This article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s lesser-known educative role as an egalitarian institution within a broader deliberative democratic process. Scholars have argued that the Court’s long asserted power of judicial review, especially in the equal protection and civil rights context, has been an over-reach of the judicial branch’s constitutional authority and responsibilities. Normative and empirical critiques have been centered on the aims of judicial review, and the challenges it poses in American political life. A core issue surrounding these critiques is that Justices are appointed not elected, and thus undermine the principle of majority rule in the U.S. constitutional democratic order. Although these critiques are legitimate in terms of claims about unelected Supreme Court Justices’ seemingly discretionary powers over elected legislative bodies, and the uncertain policy implications of judicial pronouncements on the broader society, there is, nevertheless, a positive application of judicial review as a tool Justices use as part of their educative role overcoming the so-called “counter-majoritarian difficulty.” Through a close reading of oral arguments in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) and San Antonio vs. Rodriguez (1973)—two landmark cases invoking the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution—the article shows how appointed Justices adjudicate individual cases on appeal and attempt to educate (through an argumentative, reason-based and question-centered process) citizenlitigants and their legal representatives about the importance of equality, fairness and ethical responsibility even prior to rendering final decisions on policy controversies that have broader national social, political and economic implications. Mon, 01 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/11089/27334 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z