亨利·弗兰德利和《权利法案》的通过

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW

British Journal of American Legal Studies Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.2478/BJALS-2019-0012

T. Halper

{"title":"亨利·弗兰德利和《权利法案》的通过","authors":"T. Halper","doi":"10.2478/BJALS-2019-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay analyzes the response of one of America’s pre-eminent judges, Henry Friendly, to one of the most far reaching constitutional developments of his time and our time, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In the course of addressing the issue, Friendly raised profound concerns about constitutional construction, federalism, the rule of law, and individual liberty that continue to resonate decades later.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"8 1","pages":"235 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Henry Friendly and the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights\",\"authors\":\"T. Halper\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/BJALS-2019-0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This essay analyzes the response of one of America’s pre-eminent judges, Henry Friendly, to one of the most far reaching constitutional developments of his time and our time, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In the course of addressing the issue, Friendly raised profound concerns about constitutional construction, federalism, the rule of law, and individual liberty that continue to resonate decades later.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of American Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"235 - 247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of American Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/BJALS-2019-0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/BJALS-2019-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文分析了美国杰出的法官之一亨利·弗兰德利(Henry Friendly)对他那个时代和我们这个时代影响最深远的宪法发展之一的反应，即将权利法案纳入第十四修正案的正当程序条款。在解决这个问题的过程中，弗兰德提出了对宪法建设、联邦制、法治和个人自由的深刻关注，这些关注在几十年后仍在引起共鸣。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Henry Friendly and the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

Abstract This essay analyzes the response of one of America’s pre-eminent judges, Henry Friendly, to one of the most far reaching constitutional developments of his time and our time, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In the course of addressing the issue, Friendly raised profound concerns about constitutional construction, federalism, the rule of law, and individual liberty that continue to resonate decades later.

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

British Journal of American Legal Studies LAW-

CiteScore

0.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

18 weeks

期刊介绍： The British Journal of American Legal Studies is a scholarly journal which publishes articles of interest to the Anglo-American legal community. Submissions are invited from academics and practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic on all aspects of constitutional law having relevance to the United States, including human rights, legal and political theory, socio-legal studies and legal history. International, comparative and interdisciplinary perspectives are particularly welcome. All submissions will be peer-refereed through anonymous referee processes.