To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The ratification of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) marked a landmark event in the quest to achieve intra-African free trade. AfCFTA is poised to represent the largest free trade area outside the World Trade Organization. Although AfCFTA aspires to liberalize intra-African trade in goods and services to foster socio-economic development, there are concerns that capacity constraints may stultify the underlying goals. AfCFTA is expected to build on the considerable successes already achieved by Africa's regional economic communities. However, it fails to clarify how the overlapping regimes will be reconciled and harmonized. Nevertheless, the agreement is laudable for its quest to facilitate intra-African trade, foster regional value chains that can facilitate integration into the global economy, and energize industrialization, competitiveness and innovation. This article examines the celebrated AfCFTA to understand its potential amid local realities and the possible implications for the multilateral trading system.
The principal aim of this study was to optimize the diagnosis of canine neuroangiostrongyliasis (NA). In total, 92 cases were seen between 2010 and 2020. Dogs were aged from 7 weeks to 14 years (median 5 months), with 73/90 (81%) less than 6 months and 1.7 times as many males as females. The disease became more common over the study period. Most cases (86%) were seen between March and July. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was obtained from the cisterna magna in 77 dogs, the lumbar cistern in f5, and both sites in 3. Nucleated cell counts for 84 specimens ranged from 1 to 146 150 cells μL−1 (median 4500). Percentage eosinophils varied from 0 to 98% (median 83%). When both cisternal and lumbar CSF were collected, inflammation was more severe caudally. Seventy-three CSF specimens were subjected to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing for antibodies against A. cantonensis; 61 (84%) tested positive, titres ranging from <100 to ⩾12 800 (median 1600). Sixty-one CSF specimens were subjected to real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing using a new protocol targeting a bioinformatically-informed repetitive genetic target; 53/61 samples (87%) tested positive, CT values ranging from 23.4 to 39.5 (median 30.0). For 57 dogs, it was possible to compare CSF ELISA serology and qPCR. ELISA and qPCR were both positive in 40 dogs, in 5 dogs the ELISA was positive while the qPCR was negative, in 9 dogs the qPCR was positive but the ELISA was negative, while in 3 dogs both the ELISA and qPCR were negative. NA is an emerging infectious disease of dogs in Sydney, Australia.
All the inheritable material possessed by an organism, the genome, is stored as DNA, the study of which has made an enormous impact upon archaeological science. The proteome is the suite of proteins produced by the genome at any one time. The field of proteomics is the study of this proteome, and uses mass spectrometry to identify proteins by their amino acid sequence.
Chapter 8 examines presidential remarks concerning Court cases prior to the modern presidency. This chapter enables us to place modern presidents in historical perspective and to illuminate how constitutional and political concerns motivated early presidents to discuss Court decisions. We examine all presidential remarks related to Supreme Court cases from 1789 through 1953 (Washington to Truman). We show that historic presidents rarely discussed the Court’s cases in their public rhetoric, choosing instead to share their opinions about the Court’s cases in their private correspondences. However, Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure marked the end of this norm, which was eviscerated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was in regular conflict with the Court.
Chapter 4 examines the tone of presidential discussions of Supreme Court cases, focusing on why presidents discuss cases in positive, negative, and neutral lights. We argue that presidents alter the tone of their remarks about the Court’s decisions in an effort to build public support for their presidencies, shape how the public views the constitutional issues at play, and influence the implementation of the Court’s decisions in the bureaucracy and in Congress. For example, a president happy with the Court’s decision can praise the decision and assure the country that he will take all steps necessary to ensure it is implemented. Conversely, a president displeased with a decision can criticize that decision and encourage Congress to take action to alter or reverse the decision, thus signaling that the fight over the case has not ended. Consistent with our theoretical expectations, we find that presidents criticize cases they disagree with ideologically; those that declare laws unconstitutional; and those decided by minimum winning coalitions. Conversely, presidents tend to praise salient Supreme Court decisions that support their preferred ideological positions.
Chapter 3 explores presidential rhetoric on cases that have already been decided by the Supreme Court. To investigate this, we examine all mentions of Supreme Court cases, by month, from 1953 to 2017. We differentiate written and spoken comments and show that while the former are used almost exclusively to direct the implementation of the Court’s decisions, the latter are designed to allow presidents to take positions on Court cases that are important to their electoral bases given the primacy of presidential speeches to presidents’ permanent campaigns for public support. Often, presidents will comment on recently decided cases to speak to issues that are timely and salient to the national policy conversation in an effort to guide those conversations. Indeed, we find that the presidents are especially likely to discuss Supreme Court cases during reelection years and when those cases garner media attention.
We conclude the book in Chapter 9. We begin by presenting data on the first 21.5 months of the Trump Administration and situate that information in light of our findings with regard to previous presidents as a way of bringing our empirical conclusions to life. We find that President Trump’s remarks on the Court’s cases are similar to previous presidents in many ways, but his rhetoric toward courts as institutions and lower-court judges is more vitriolic than his predecessors. We then review our key findings with regard to normative theoretical debates about judicial independence and the coordinate construction of the Constitution, and discuss their contributions to the study of the rhetorical presidency. We ultimately conclude that taking positions on Supreme Court decisions is a perfectly appropriate presidential governance strategy. We close by offering suggestions for future research on the important subject of executive-judicial relations in the US and across the globe.
Chapter 7 examines the relationship between presidential discussions of Supreme Court decisions and public opinion in two ways. First, we investigate whether presidents can influence the public’s views of the Supreme Court and its decisions through their public remarks. Second, we analyze whether presidents lead or follow public attitudes when they take positions on the Court’s cases. Using an original survey experiment, we find that presidents can shape public support for the Court’s decisions in low-salience issue areas, but they have a hard time molding public opinion in high-salience cases, such as immigration. We further find that presidents tend to take positions on the Court’s decisions that are congruent with public opinion on the issue areas featured in those cases, indicating that presidents are democratically responsive actors.
Chapter 2 explores the motivations for going public on pending Supreme Court decisions and the effect of these speeches on case outcomes. Though presidents commonly use speeches to shape the actions of Congress and the bureaucracy, this is a risky tactic with regard to the Supreme Court, since it makes the president susceptible to attacks for violating the norm of judicial independence. Moreover, it is not entirely clear why a president would turn to public speeches to influence the justices when the Solicitor General is available to litigate cases or file amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs before the Court on behalf of the administration. We conclude that presidents’ primary motivation to speak about pending cases is not to influence their outcomes, but rather to take public positions that demonstrate their commitment to the policies implicated in the litigation, including shaping how the public understands the constitutional issues involved in the cases.
Chapter 6 examines the relationship between presidential remarks on Supreme Court cases and news coverage of those remarks. We argue that presidents make concerted efforts to influence media coverage of their perspectives to mold how the public thinks about the constitutional issues involved in the Court’s cases. We examine the ability of presidents to shape the volume of news attention to the Court’s cases, as well as the tone of newspaper coverage of the president’s remarks (using Lexicoder text analysis software) for all New York Times coverage of presidential speeches on Supreme Court decisions from 1953 to 2017. We find that presidents are capable of influencing the volume of news coverage of their discussions of Court cases, with coverage associated with the length and type of the presidential statement, the tone presidents use to describe the cases, and the timing and location of the speech, among other factors. However, presidents are generally incapable of affecting the tone of media coverage of their remarks.
Our introductory chapter has several goals. First, we introduce the topic, identifying the popular conception that presidents discuss Supreme Court decisions in an effort to influence case outcomes. Second, we develop our theoretical argument, which begins with the well-grounded assumption that presidents pursue three primary goals while in office: good public policy, reelection, and historical achievement. In turn, presidents use their legitimate power and authority to realize these goals. Third, we preview the central motivation of the book: understanding why presidents discuss Supreme Court decisions in their public rhetoric and the impact of those statements. This includes examining whether presidents use their remarks to influence cases pending before the Court, or whether presidents comment on Supreme Court cases after they have been handed down in an effort to promote their reelection, policy goals, and historical legacies, as well as affect the implementation of the decisions and the public’s understanding of the Constitution. This chapter also presents survey data on Americans’ attitudes toward presidential discussions of Supreme Court decisions, and a discussion of the original database used throughout the book.