宪法是否处于危险之中?实体正当程序与刑法

E. Tennen
{"title":"宪法是否处于危险之中?实体正当程序与刑法","authors":"E. Tennen","doi":"10.15779/Z38JK7W","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"¶1. For quite some time, scholars have debated whether or not there are any constitutional limits to substantive criminal law.[1] Although the Court has cautiously resisted the chance to constitutionalize criminal law overtly, it has been delving into substantive criminal law since the turn of the twentieth century.[2] To be sure, the Court often disguises these forays as cases about substantive due process generally, and privacy, specifically.","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the Constitution in Harm's Way?Substantive Due Process and Criminal Law\",\"authors\":\"E. Tennen\",\"doi\":\"10.15779/Z38JK7W\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"¶1. For quite some time, scholars have debated whether or not there are any constitutional limits to substantive criminal law.[1] Although the Court has cautiously resisted the chance to constitutionalize criminal law overtly, it has been delving into substantive criminal law since the turn of the twentieth century.[2] To be sure, the Court often disguises these forays as cases about substantive due process generally, and privacy, specifically.\",\"PeriodicalId\":386851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38JK7W\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38JK7W","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

¶1。相当长一段时间以来,学者们一直在争论实体刑法是否存在宪法限制。[1]尽管最高法院一直谨慎地抵制公开将刑法宪法化的机会,但自20世纪初以来,它一直在深入研究实体刑法。[2]可以肯定的是,最高法院经常把这些突袭伪装成一般意义上的实质性正当程序案件,特别是隐私案件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is the Constitution in Harm's Way?Substantive Due Process and Criminal Law
¶1. For quite some time, scholars have debated whether or not there are any constitutional limits to substantive criminal law.[1] Although the Court has cautiously resisted the chance to constitutionalize criminal law overtly, it has been delving into substantive criminal law since the turn of the twentieth century.[2] To be sure, the Court often disguises these forays as cases about substantive due process generally, and privacy, specifically.
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