联邦权力司法化

J. Broughton
{"title":"联邦权力司法化","authors":"J. Broughton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.963158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The federal Constitution is ambiguous about federative power, Locke's description of the power over war and foreign relations. On the one hand, the Constitution is plainly un-Lockean, dividing federative power between Congress and the President. Yet there is a rich constitutional and political history in America suggesting that the constitutional scheme is more Lockean than at first blush, even if obscured by complexity. This paper responds to two lines of argument that seek to limit especially the executive's Lockean tendencies: first, that courts should be more involved in reviewing executive exercises of federative power; and second, that the current administration has asserted an unprecedented view of executive authority that compels judicial review as a crucial constitutional check. This paper offers a brief history of judicial review relevant to federative power, recognizing three distinct eras of decisions that have culminated in a prudently circumscribed approach to challenges regarding the constitutional allocation of federative power that enforces the doctrines of non-justiciability to avoid judicial intervention and permit play in the joints of the Constitution's formal federative power machinery. Still, the war on terror cases foreshadow the possible coming of a new era in which political decisions regarding war and foreign affairs will be subject to much more rigorous judicial scrutiny. This judicialization of federative power, the paper contends, is an unwarranted and dangerous step. Judicializing federative power would be consistent with the current Supreme Court's omnipotent posture toward judicial review generally, but would further marginalize efforts at practical governance by political institutions and undermine the formal constitutional arrangements that characterize their roles in war and foreign affairs. Judicialization would also damage both the un-Lockean balance, which contemplates the exercise of political tools by both Congress and the President when they are competing in matters of war and foreign affairs, and the Lockean executive, who, Article II contemplates, will act with energy to grapple with necessity and to affirmatively defend the Constitution and the Republic.","PeriodicalId":195832,"journal":{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicializing Federative Power\",\"authors\":\"J. Broughton\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.963158\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The federal Constitution is ambiguous about federative power, Locke's description of the power over war and foreign relations. On the one hand, the Constitution is plainly un-Lockean, dividing federative power between Congress and the President. Yet there is a rich constitutional and political history in America suggesting that the constitutional scheme is more Lockean than at first blush, even if obscured by complexity. This paper responds to two lines of argument that seek to limit especially the executive's Lockean tendencies: first, that courts should be more involved in reviewing executive exercises of federative power; and second, that the current administration has asserted an unprecedented view of executive authority that compels judicial review as a crucial constitutional check. This paper offers a brief history of judicial review relevant to federative power, recognizing three distinct eras of decisions that have culminated in a prudently circumscribed approach to challenges regarding the constitutional allocation of federative power that enforces the doctrines of non-justiciability to avoid judicial intervention and permit play in the joints of the Constitution's formal federative power machinery. Still, the war on terror cases foreshadow the possible coming of a new era in which political decisions regarding war and foreign affairs will be subject to much more rigorous judicial scrutiny. This judicialization of federative power, the paper contends, is an unwarranted and dangerous step. Judicializing federative power would be consistent with the current Supreme Court's omnipotent posture toward judicial review generally, but would further marginalize efforts at practical governance by political institutions and undermine the formal constitutional arrangements that characterize their roles in war and foreign affairs. Judicialization would also damage both the un-Lockean balance, which contemplates the exercise of political tools by both Congress and the President when they are competing in matters of war and foreign affairs, and the Lockean executive, who, Article II contemplates, will act with energy to grapple with necessity and to affirmatively defend the Constitution and the Republic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":195832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.963158\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.963158","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

联邦宪法对联邦权力的描述是模棱两可的,洛克对战争和外交关系权力的描述。一方面,宪法是明确的非洛克式的,将联邦权力划分给国会和总统。然而,美国丰富的宪法和政治历史表明,宪法制度比乍一看更像洛克式的,即使被复杂性所掩盖。本文回应了两种观点,这两种观点试图限制行政机构的洛克倾向:首先,法院应该更多地参与审查联邦权力的行政行使;第二,现任政府对行政权力的看法前所未有,迫使司法审查成为一项至关重要的宪法检查。本文简要介绍了与联邦权力相关的司法审查的历史,认识到三个不同的决定时代,这些决定以审慎的限制方法达到高潮,以应对宪法对联邦权力的分配提出的挑战,这些挑战强制执行非可诉性原则,以避免司法干预,并允许在宪法的正式联邦权力机制的接合处发挥作用。尽管如此,反恐战争案件预示着一个新时代的到来,在这个时代,有关战争和外交事务的政治决定将受到更加严格的司法审查。这篇论文认为,联邦权力的司法化是一个毫无根据且危险的步骤。将联邦权力司法化将符合目前最高法院对司法审查的全能姿态,但将进一步边缘化政治机构实际治理的努力,并破坏其在战争和外交事务中所起作用的正式宪法安排。司法化也会破坏非洛克式的平衡,这种平衡考虑到国会和总统在战争和外交事务上竞争时使用政治工具,也会破坏洛克式的行政机构,根据第二条的设想,洛克式行政机构将积极行动,与必要性作斗争,并积极捍卫宪法和共和国。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Judicializing Federative Power
The federal Constitution is ambiguous about federative power, Locke's description of the power over war and foreign relations. On the one hand, the Constitution is plainly un-Lockean, dividing federative power between Congress and the President. Yet there is a rich constitutional and political history in America suggesting that the constitutional scheme is more Lockean than at first blush, even if obscured by complexity. This paper responds to two lines of argument that seek to limit especially the executive's Lockean tendencies: first, that courts should be more involved in reviewing executive exercises of federative power; and second, that the current administration has asserted an unprecedented view of executive authority that compels judicial review as a crucial constitutional check. This paper offers a brief history of judicial review relevant to federative power, recognizing three distinct eras of decisions that have culminated in a prudently circumscribed approach to challenges regarding the constitutional allocation of federative power that enforces the doctrines of non-justiciability to avoid judicial intervention and permit play in the joints of the Constitution's formal federative power machinery. Still, the war on terror cases foreshadow the possible coming of a new era in which political decisions regarding war and foreign affairs will be subject to much more rigorous judicial scrutiny. This judicialization of federative power, the paper contends, is an unwarranted and dangerous step. Judicializing federative power would be consistent with the current Supreme Court's omnipotent posture toward judicial review generally, but would further marginalize efforts at practical governance by political institutions and undermine the formal constitutional arrangements that characterize their roles in war and foreign affairs. Judicialization would also damage both the un-Lockean balance, which contemplates the exercise of political tools by both Congress and the President when they are competing in matters of war and foreign affairs, and the Lockean executive, who, Article II contemplates, will act with energy to grapple with necessity and to affirmatively defend the Constitution and the Republic.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信