The Nature of Constitutional Rights最新文献

Rights, Remedies, and Justiciability 权利、救济和可诉性

The Nature of Constitutional Rights Pub Date : 2019-03-14 DOI: 10.1017/9781108673549.007

引用次数: 0

Rights and Interests 权益

The Nature of Constitutional Rights Pub Date : 2019-03-14 DOI: 10.11575/PRISM/16858

Nettie Wiebe

引用次数: 0

Conclusion 结论

The Nature of Constitutional Rights Pub Date : 2019-03-14 DOI: 10.1017/9781108673549.009

引用次数: 0

Strict Scrutiny as an Incompletely Theorized Agreement 作为不完全理论化协议的严格审查

The Nature of Constitutional Rights Pub Date : 2019-03-14 DOI: 10.1017/9781108673549.003

引用次数: 0

Legislative Intent and Deliberative Rights 立法意旨与议会权

The Nature of Constitutional Rights Pub Date : 2019-03-14 DOI: 10.1017/9781108673549.006

引用次数: 0

Index 指数

The Nature of Constitutional Rights Pub Date : 2019-03-14 DOI: 10.1017/9781108673549.010

引用次数: 0

Tests besides Strict Judicial Scrutiny and the Nature of the Rights That They Protect 除了严格的司法审查和它们所保护的权利的性质之外的测试

The Nature of Constitutional Rights Pub Date : 2019-03-14 DOI: 10.1017/9781108673549.005

引用次数: 0

The Historical Emergence of Strict Judicial Scrutiny 严格司法审查的历史产生

The Nature of Constitutional Rights Pub Date : 2019-03-01 DOI: 10.1017/9781108673549.002

R. Fallon

引用次数: 1

The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review 司法审查中一个棘手案件的核心

The Nature of Constitutional Rights Pub Date : 2008-05-01 DOI: 10.1017/9781108673549.008

R. Fallon

{"title":"The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review","authors":"R. Fallon","doi":"10.1017/9781108673549.008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108673549.008","url":null,"abstract":"TABLE OF CONTENTS I. WALDRON'S ARGUMENT THAT OUTCOME-RELATED REASONS ARE INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT JUDICIAL REVIEW 1701 A. Waldron's Assumptions 1701 B. Which Assumptions Do What Work? 1701 II. PREFERRED RIGHTS AND OUTCOME-RELATED REASONS TO SUPPORT JUDICIAL REVIEW 1704 A. Distinguishing Errors of Underenforcement and Overenforcement of Individual Rights 1704 B. The Limits of the Outcome-Based Case for Judicial Review: Contestable Premises and the Burdens of Judgment 1709 III. PROCESS-BASED REASONS AND POLITICAL LEGITIMACY 1715 A. Waldron's Process-Based Argument--And Its Limits 1716 B. Political Legitimacy and Its Sources 1716 C. Comparative Democratic and Political Legitimacy 1717 1. Anchoring Assumptions 1717 2. Transitional Questions 1719 3. Judicial Review Without Entrenchment 1719 4. Entrenched Rights and Judicial Review 1722 (a) Entrenched Rights Without Judicial Review 1722 (b) Entrenched Rights Coupled with Entrenched Judicial Review 1724 IV. NOTES ON THE DESIGN OF A SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 1726 A. Judicially Reviewable Issues 1727 B. Scope of Review 1730 C. Choosing Strong or Weak Judicial Review 1731 D. Judicial Review in Societies that Are Not Well Ordered 1732 V. CONCLUSION 1733 Richard H. Fallon, Jr. * For a long season, the desirability of judicial review of legislation was a complacent assumption of American constitutional, political, and moral thought. A vigorous debate percolated about how courts should interpret the Constitution, but not much serious discussion addressed whether judicial review should exist at all. Now matters have changed. Although debate continues concerning how courts should make constitutional decisions, distinguished critics have begun to argue for a fundamental rethinking of the role of courts in a democratic culture such as ours. (1) Some advocate the total abolition of judicial review. (2) Having heard the critics, I now believe that the affirmative case for judicial review needs to be partially revised if judicial review is to be defended successfully on the moral high ground of liberal political theory. In a nutshell, the best case for judicial review in politically and morally healthy societies does not rest (as has often been asserted) on the idea that courts are more likely than legislatures to make correct decisions about how to define vague rights of the kind commonly included in bills of rights--on notions, for example, that courts are peculiarly well designed to function as \"forum[s] of principle.\" (3) The best case, as Frank Cross also has argued, (4) rests instead on the subtly different ground that legislatures and courts should both be enlisted in protecting fundamental rights, and that both should have veto powers over legislation that might reasonably be thought to violate such rights. A suggestive, albeit not perfect, analogy comes from the federal jury system in criminal cases, under which a defendant cannot be convicted without the unanimous agreement of the jury, (5) and each of the twe","PeriodicalId":368039,"journal":{"name":"The Nature of Constitutional Rights","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128515935","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: 58