多布斯,历史与传统,以及实质性正当程序

Joseph S. Devaney
{"title":"多布斯,历史与传统,以及实质性正当程序","authors":"Joseph S. Devaney","doi":"10.5840/cssr2023285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Another problematic aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson has to do with the legal principle of substantive due process, deriving from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This article provided an in-depth examination of the principle of due process, and demonstrates how the Court’s decision in Dobbs winds up restricting that principle, and thus may not provide the strongest legal ground on which to restrict abortion. Instead, the article concluded that interpreting the due process clause according to its original public meaning would resolve a number of the problems associated with the substantive due process doctrine, affecting other matters beyond that of abortion.","PeriodicalId":348926,"journal":{"name":"The Catholic Social Science Review","volume":"255 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dobbs, History and Tradition, and Substantive Due Process\",\"authors\":\"Joseph S. Devaney\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/cssr2023285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Another problematic aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson has to do with the legal principle of substantive due process, deriving from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This article provided an in-depth examination of the principle of due process, and demonstrates how the Court’s decision in Dobbs winds up restricting that principle, and thus may not provide the strongest legal ground on which to restrict abortion. Instead, the article concluded that interpreting the due process clause according to its original public meaning would resolve a number of the problems associated with the substantive due process doctrine, affecting other matters beyond that of abortion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":348926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Catholic Social Science Review\",\"volume\":\"255 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Catholic Social Science Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/cssr2023285\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Catholic Social Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/cssr2023285","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

最高法院在“多布斯诉杰克逊案”(Dobbs v. Jackson)中作出的裁决的另一个有问题的方面与源于宪法第十四修正案的实质性正当程序的法律原则有关。这篇文章对正当程序原则进行了深入的研究,并说明了法院在多布斯案中的裁决如何最终限制了这一原则,因此可能无法为限制堕胎提供最有力的法律依据。相反,该条的结论是,根据其最初的公共含义解释正当程序条款将解决与实质性正当程序原则有关的一些问题,影响到堕胎以外的其他事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dobbs, History and Tradition, and Substantive Due Process
Another problematic aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson has to do with the legal principle of substantive due process, deriving from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This article provided an in-depth examination of the principle of due process, and demonstrates how the Court’s decision in Dobbs winds up restricting that principle, and thus may not provide the strongest legal ground on which to restrict abortion. Instead, the article concluded that interpreting the due process clause according to its original public meaning would resolve a number of the problems associated with the substantive due process doctrine, affecting other matters beyond that of abortion.
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