From the Spirit of the Federalist Papers to the End of Legitimacy: Reflections on Gundy V. United States

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
J. Heath
{"title":"From the Spirit of the Federalist Papers to the End of Legitimacy: Reflections on Gundy V. United States","authors":"J. Heath","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3517503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The revival of the nondelegation doctrine, foreshadowed last term in Gundy v. United States, signals the end of a distinctive style of legal and political thought. The doctrine’s apparent demise after the 1930s facilitated the development of a methodological approach that embodied what Lon Fuller once called “the spirit of the Federalist Papers”: an openended engagement with the problem of designing democracy and controlling public power. At its best, this discourse was critical and propulsive, with each purported solution generating more questions than it answered. The turn against congressional delegations will likely bring to a close this period of open and self-critical experimentation. In its place, we are likely to see the emergence of warring visions of the administrative state, each claiming legitimacy—neither credibly—according to its own comprehensive normative doctrine. AUTHOR—Acting Assistant Professor of Lawyering, New York University School of Law. Many thanks to Edith Beerdsen, Dominic Budetti, Harlan Cohen, Michael Pollack, David Simson, Richard B. Stewart, Thomas Streinz, and David Zaring for helpful comments and discussions, and thanks to Danielle Berkowsky and the staff of the Northwestern University Law Review for careful and conscientious editing. 114:278 (2020) From the Spirit of the Federalist Papers 279 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 279 I. THE “SPIRIT OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS” IN U.S. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ........... 283 II. NONDELEGATION’S REVIVAL: DISPELLING FULLER’S SPIRIT? ............................... 293 III. LEGITIMACY’S END ............................................................................................... 299","PeriodicalId":47587,"journal":{"name":"Northwestern University Law Review","volume":"114 1","pages":"1723-1748"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northwestern University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3517503","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The revival of the nondelegation doctrine, foreshadowed last term in Gundy v. United States, signals the end of a distinctive style of legal and political thought. The doctrine’s apparent demise after the 1930s facilitated the development of a methodological approach that embodied what Lon Fuller once called “the spirit of the Federalist Papers”: an openended engagement with the problem of designing democracy and controlling public power. At its best, this discourse was critical and propulsive, with each purported solution generating more questions than it answered. The turn against congressional delegations will likely bring to a close this period of open and self-critical experimentation. In its place, we are likely to see the emergence of warring visions of the administrative state, each claiming legitimacy—neither credibly—according to its own comprehensive normative doctrine. AUTHOR—Acting Assistant Professor of Lawyering, New York University School of Law. Many thanks to Edith Beerdsen, Dominic Budetti, Harlan Cohen, Michael Pollack, David Simson, Richard B. Stewart, Thomas Streinz, and David Zaring for helpful comments and discussions, and thanks to Danielle Berkowsky and the staff of the Northwestern University Law Review for careful and conscientious editing. 114:278 (2020) From the Spirit of the Federalist Papers 279 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 279 I. THE “SPIRIT OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS” IN U.S. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ........... 283 II. NONDELEGATION’S REVIVAL: DISPELLING FULLER’S SPIRIT? ............................... 293 III. LEGITIMACY’S END ............................................................................................... 299
从《联邦党人文集》的精神到合法性的终结:对甘迪诉美国案的反思
上一届任期的甘迪诉美国案(Gundy v. United States)预示着非授权原则的复兴,标志着一种独特的法律和政治思想风格的终结。该学说在20世纪30年代之后的明显消亡,促进了一种方法论方法的发展,这种方法体现了朗•富勒(Lon Fuller)曾经所说的“联邦党人文集的精神”:对设计民主和控制公共权力的问题进行开放的接触。在最好的情况下,这种论述是批判性和推进性的,每一个所谓的解决方案产生的问题都比它回答的问题多。反对国会代表团可能会结束这段开放和自我批判的实验时期。取而代之的是,我们很可能会看到行政国家的交战愿景的出现,每一种愿景都声称自己的合法性——既不可信——根据自己的综合规范原则。作者,纽约大学法学院代理律师助理教授。非常感谢Edith Beerdsen, Dominic Budetti, Harlan Cohen, Michael Pollack, David Simson, Richard B. Stewart, Thomas Streinz和David Zaring提供的有益的评论和讨论,并感谢Danielle Berkowsky和西北大学法律评论的工作人员仔细和认真的编辑。114:278(2020)从279年《联邦党人文集》的精神 .............................................................................................................279 .美国行政法中的“联邦党人文集精神”...........283二世。非授权的复兴:驱散富勒的精神?...............................293 III。合法性的结束 ...............................................................................................299
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Northwestern University Law Review is a student-operated journal that publishes four issues of high-quality, general legal scholarship each year. Student editors make the editorial and organizational decisions and select articles submitted by professors, judges, and practitioners, as well as student pieces.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信