
Source: Systematic Politics, 1943, p. 162-3 ; as cited in Albert Lepawsky (1949), Administration, p. 15-16
Source: Systematic Politics, 1943, p. 163-4 ; as cited in Albert Lepawsky (1949), Administration, p. 15-16
Source: Systematic Politics, 1943, p. 162-3 ; as cited in Albert Lepawsky (1949), Administration, p. 15-16
The Guardian article, 30 June 2011 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jun/30/labour-guru-german-public-service-vision
'Heath's spadework for socialism', The Sunday Times (25 March 1973), p. 61
1970s
Source: Object-oriented modeling and design (1990), p. 155; as cited in: Roger Chiang et al (2009, p. 165)
The Supreme Court: How it Was, How it Is (1987).
Books, articles, and speeches
Context: An oft-heard description of the Supreme Court is that it is the ultimate protector in our society of the liberties of the individual. This phrase describes an important role of the Supreme Court, but by ignoring other equally important functions of the Court, it has a potential for mischief. It is a fairly short leap from this language to a feeling that the US Constitution is somehow "vindicated" every time a claim of individual right against government is upheld, and is not vindicated whenever such a claim is not upheld. But this, of course, cannot be the case. The role of the Supreme Court is to uphold those claims of individual liberty that it finds are well-founded in the Constitution, and to reject other claims against the government that it concludes are not well-founded. Its role is no more to exclusively uphold the claims of the individual than it is to exclusively uphold the claims of the government: It must hold the constitutional balance true between these claims.
Source: The Scientific Analysis of Personality, 1965, p. 160
Source: 1970s, Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View, 1970, p. 2
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007)