分岔审查时代的最高法院3

G. White
{"title":"分岔审查时代的最高法院3","authors":"G. White","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments followed an uneven pattern in the period covered in this volume. From a posture of aggressive review in cases posing due process challenges to state and judicial legislation, the court retreated to one of deference when the legislation affected “social and economic transactions.” But in other cases, such as when free speech and freedom of religion were restricted by legislative or administrative policies, the Court retained an aggressive posture. Eventually, after initially announcing that it eschewed “substantive” interpretations of the Due Process Clauses, the Court began advancing those interpretations in cases involving restrictions on the use of contraceptives and abortion decisions.","PeriodicalId":283594,"journal":{"name":"Law in American History, Volume III","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Supreme Court in the Era of Bifurcated Review III\",\"authors\":\"G. White\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments followed an uneven pattern in the period covered in this volume. From a posture of aggressive review in cases posing due process challenges to state and judicial legislation, the court retreated to one of deference when the legislation affected “social and economic transactions.” But in other cases, such as when free speech and freedom of religion were restricted by legislative or administrative policies, the Court retained an aggressive posture. Eventually, after initially announcing that it eschewed “substantive” interpretations of the Due Process Clauses, the Court began advancing those interpretations in cases involving restrictions on the use of contraceptives and abortion decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":283594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law in American History, Volume III\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law in American History, Volume III\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law in American History, Volume III","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本卷所述的时期内,最高法院解释第五和第十四修正案的正当程序条款的裁决遵循了一种不平衡的模式。在对州和司法立法提出正当程序挑战的案件中,最高法院采取了积极审查的态度,但当立法影响到“社会和经济交易”时,最高法院退缩到尊重的态度。但在其他情况下,例如当言论自由和宗教自由受到立法或行政政策的限制时,最高法院保持了积极的姿态。最终,在最初宣布避开对正当程序条款的“实质性”解释之后,最高法院开始在涉及限制使用避孕药具和堕胎判决的案件中推进这些解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Supreme Court in the Era of Bifurcated Review III
The Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments followed an uneven pattern in the period covered in this volume. From a posture of aggressive review in cases posing due process challenges to state and judicial legislation, the court retreated to one of deference when the legislation affected “social and economic transactions.” But in other cases, such as when free speech and freedom of religion were restricted by legislative or administrative policies, the Court retained an aggressive posture. Eventually, after initially announcing that it eschewed “substantive” interpretations of the Due Process Clauses, the Court began advancing those interpretations in cases involving restrictions on the use of contraceptives and abortion decisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信