Tulsa Law Review最新文献_第3页

Peculiar Times for a Peculiar Institution, reviewing David Garland, Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition 特殊制度的特殊时代，评论David Garland的《特殊制度:废除时代的美国死刑》

Tulsa Law Review Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.5860/choice.48-5989

Jordan M. Steiker

引用次数: 3

Native Nations and Museums: Developing an Institutional Framework for Cultural Sovereignty 土著民族和博物馆:发展文化主权的制度框架

Tulsa Law Review Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1865497

Rebecca A. Tsosie

{"title":"Native Nations and Museums: Developing an Institutional Framework for Cultural Sovereignty","authors":"Rebecca A. Tsosie","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1865497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1865497","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the changing relationships between museums and indigenous peoples over the past two centuries, with a specific focus upon the relationship of American museums to Native peoples within the United States. In the 19th century, the role of the American Museum was to acquire objects that could offer knowledge about natural history or world cultures to facilitate certain public values. With respect to Native peoples, the 19th century practices of American museum often institutionalized a hierarchical relationship consistent with the exploitative tenets of European colonialism and Imperialism. In comparison, modern museums must engage the multiple experiences of the diverse groups that are present within the nation-state, as well as disparate populations across the globe. Groups often disagree about the meaning of the past, as well as the articulation of their contemporary identity. In this respect, modern museums often participate in reshaping public values through the combined processes of repatriation and reconciliation. Through the process of repatriation, museums honor the human rights of Native peoples by transferring possession of ancestral human remains and cultural objects that were wrongfully appropriated in the past. Through the process of reconciliation, museums foster new relationships between Native peoples and the nation-state that more accurately reflect their distinctive historical experience and contemporary identity as separate sovereigns. This article argues that museums have an important role to play in the contemporary effort of Native Nations to assert their cultural sovereignty and reclaim their own histories. Specifically, the article examines the role of the National Museum of the American Indian and the role of tribal museums in fostering tribal cultural sovereignty.","PeriodicalId":170753,"journal":{"name":"Tulsa Law Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129712270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

The Resurgent Second Amendment 复兴的第二修正案

Tulsa Law Review Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3403008

Robert J. Cottrol

引用次数: 0

Judicial Impediments to Legislating Equality for Same-Sex Couples in the European Union 欧盟同性伴侣平等立法的司法障碍

Tulsa Law Review Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.21427/D74196

Bruce Carolan

{"title":"Judicial Impediments to Legislating Equality for Same-Sex Couples in the European Union","authors":"Bruce Carolan","doi":"10.21427/D74196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21427/D74196","url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, the state and federal courts often has been the first port of call for activists hoping to advance the cause of same-sex couples. State courts, in particular, have ruled on occasion that guarantees of equal rights or due process contained in state constitutions require recognition of same-sex marriage or civil unions. These court decisions, in turn, have sparked a legislative backlash. Legislators and voters have rejected these court decisions by amending state constitutions to limit the rights of same-sex couples. The European Union represents, in some ways, the mirror image of the United States experience. The EU 'legislators' - represented by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament - have adopted 'progressive' legislation, including laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The European Court of Justice, however, has provided very narrow interpretations of the content of these 'equal rights' guarantees. In particular, the Court of Justice has ruled that discrimination against same-sex couples - in denial of employment rights available to opposite-sex unmarried couples, for example - does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation. This article traces the development of the EU position, and compares and contrasts it with similar developments in the US courts and legislatures.","PeriodicalId":170753,"journal":{"name":"Tulsa Law Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129739913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Why Does Congress Vote on Some Texts But Not Others 为什么国会对某些文本投票而对其他文本不投票

Tulsa Law Review Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2853482

J. Manning

{"title":"Why Does Congress Vote on Some Texts But Not Others","authors":"J. Manning","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2853482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2853482","url":null,"abstract":"In Robert A. Katzmann, Judging Statutes (2014), Judge Katzmann argues that because the Constitution authorizes Congress to prescribe its own procedures, judges should pay close attention to the internal nitty-gritty of the legislative process when determining what interpretive fidelity to Congress entails. In particular, he writes that, because Congress treats legislative history “as essential in understanding [statutory] meaning,” a textualist judge who refuses to consult that resource “may... undermine the constitutional understanding that Congress's statute-making should be respected as a democratic principle.” In taking this position, Judge Katzmann joins an array of scholars who want judges to take better account of the impact of congressional rules of procedure, the way legislative staffers understand drafting practices on the ground, and the role norms of legislative behavior play in shaping statutes. This new line of inquiry might be described as a “Legislative Process school,” which tries to link the meaning constructed by interpreters more tightly to the precise means by which drafters generate that meaning. The review essay raises the following question about the Legislative Process school’s position on legislative history: Namely, if legislative history is as central to the legislative process as the Legislative Process school suggests — that is, if the most important forms of legislative history (viz. committee reports) are generated by key legislators to advise other legislators of a statute's meaning, if rank-and-file members base their votes on the legislative history, and if legislative history is more probative of the legislative “deal” than is the statute itself — then why does Congress choose to vote on the dry, technical bill alone, and not on the legislative history or, indeed, on both sets of texts in tandem? Both the bill and the accompanying committee reports are texts; both are generated by the legislative process; both are available before the final vote. So what are we to make of the fact that Congress typically chooses to vote on the bill alone? That question is sharpened, moreover, by Congress's continued failure to put legislative history to a vote three decades into a textualist campaign that has put legislative history on uncertain footing in the federal courts. Absent a convincing answer, one might wonder whether pivotal legislators think it unlikely that they could pass the full complement of legislative history — or even high value items such as committee reports — if they put those materials to a vote instead of, or even alongside, the text.","PeriodicalId":170753,"journal":{"name":"Tulsa Law Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114712778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Morton Horwitz and His Critics: A Conflict of Narratives 莫顿·霍维茨和他的批评者:叙事的冲突

Tulsa Law Review Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1017/9781108147668.008

R. Gordon

引用次数: 3