亚历山大-汉密尔顿谈行政权力

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Ilan Wurman
{"title":"亚历山大-汉密尔顿谈行政权力","authors":"Ilan Wurman","doi":"10.1093/ajlh/njad005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ‘residuum’ theory of executive power maintains that Article II’s Vesting Clause grants to the president of the United States a residuum of royal prerogative powers that have not been assigned to other departments of the national government or otherwise limited elsewhere in the text of the Constitution. This theory is often traced to Alexander Hamilton’s Pacificus essay, in which he defended President Washington’s proclamation of neutrality with a version of that theory. Two years earlier, however, in his opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, Hamilton appears to have rejected the residuum theory; at a minimum, he had incentive to propound that theory but did not do so. Although not the only possible way to interpret Hamilton’s opinion, scholars of executive power must contend with this possibility before concluding that Hamilton believed in a residual vesting of prerogative powers.","PeriodicalId":54164,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alexander Hamilton on Executive Authority\",\"authors\":\"Ilan Wurman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajlh/njad005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The ‘residuum’ theory of executive power maintains that Article II’s Vesting Clause grants to the president of the United States a residuum of royal prerogative powers that have not been assigned to other departments of the national government or otherwise limited elsewhere in the text of the Constitution. This theory is often traced to Alexander Hamilton’s Pacificus essay, in which he defended President Washington’s proclamation of neutrality with a version of that theory. Two years earlier, however, in his opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, Hamilton appears to have rejected the residuum theory; at a minimum, he had incentive to propound that theory but did not do so. Although not the only possible way to interpret Hamilton’s opinion, scholars of executive power must contend with this possibility before concluding that Hamilton believed in a residual vesting of prerogative powers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njad005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njad005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

行政权的 "剩余 "理论认为,宪法第二条的 "归属条款 "赋予美国总统剩余的皇室特权,这些权力没有分配给国家政府的其他部门,也没有在宪法文本的其他地方受到限制。这一理论通常可追溯到亚历山大-汉密尔顿(Alexander Hamilton)的《太平洋》(Pacificus)一文,他在文中用这一理论的一个版本为华盛顿总统的中立宣言辩护。然而,两年前,汉密尔顿在其关于美国银行合宪性的意见中似乎已经拒绝了剩余价值理论;至少,他有动机提出这一理论,但却没有这样做。尽管这不是解释汉密尔顿意见的唯一可能方式,但研究行政权的学者在得出汉密尔顿相信剩余特权的结论之前,必须考虑到这种可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Alexander Hamilton on Executive Authority
The ‘residuum’ theory of executive power maintains that Article II’s Vesting Clause grants to the president of the United States a residuum of royal prerogative powers that have not been assigned to other departments of the national government or otherwise limited elsewhere in the text of the Constitution. This theory is often traced to Alexander Hamilton’s Pacificus essay, in which he defended President Washington’s proclamation of neutrality with a version of that theory. Two years earlier, however, in his opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, Hamilton appears to have rejected the residuum theory; at a minimum, he had incentive to propound that theory but did not do so. Although not the only possible way to interpret Hamilton’s opinion, scholars of executive power must contend with this possibility before concluding that Hamilton believed in a residual vesting of prerogative powers.
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Legal History was established in 1957 as the first English-language legal history journal. The journal remains devoted to the publication of articles and documents on the history of all legal systems. The journal is refereed, and members of the Judiciary and the Bar form the advisory board.
×
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