决策难题的Klein规则及其自处理解法

E. C. Zoldan
{"title":"决策难题的Klein规则及其自处理解法","authors":"E. C. Zoldan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2925464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars and courts have struggled to make sense of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Klein, an intriguing but enigmatic opinion concerning the limits of Congress’s ability to interfere with cases pending before the federal courts. Klein is intriguing because its broad and emphatic language suggests significant limits on the power of Congress. Klein is enigmatic because the Court has never again struck down a statute because of Klein or even made clear what principle animates its result. In fact, despite reaffirming the existence of a principle based on Klein, the Court has repeatedly read it narrowly, suggesting that the principle it embodies has not been adequately articulated. This Article argues that Klein’s principle is a specific application of a robust constitutional tradition that restrains governmental self-dealing. A Klein principle restraining governmental self-dealing explains the Court’s Klein cases, situates the principle within constitutional theory and doctrine, and provides much-needed direction to lower courts wrestling with questions about legislative intrusions into judicial functions.","PeriodicalId":83483,"journal":{"name":"Washington and Lee law review","volume":"74 1","pages":"2133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Klein Rule of Decision Puzzle and the Self-Dealing Solution\",\"authors\":\"E. C. Zoldan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2925464\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars and courts have struggled to make sense of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Klein, an intriguing but enigmatic opinion concerning the limits of Congress’s ability to interfere with cases pending before the federal courts. Klein is intriguing because its broad and emphatic language suggests significant limits on the power of Congress. Klein is enigmatic because the Court has never again struck down a statute because of Klein or even made clear what principle animates its result. In fact, despite reaffirming the existence of a principle based on Klein, the Court has repeatedly read it narrowly, suggesting that the principle it embodies has not been adequately articulated. This Article argues that Klein’s principle is a specific application of a robust constitutional tradition that restrains governmental self-dealing. A Klein principle restraining governmental self-dealing explains the Court’s Klein cases, situates the principle within constitutional theory and doctrine, and provides much-needed direction to lower courts wrestling with questions about legislative intrusions into judicial functions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Washington and Lee law review\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"2133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Washington and Lee law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2925464\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington and Lee law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2925464","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

学者和法院一直在努力理解最高法院在美国诉克莱因案中的裁决,这是一个有趣但神秘的意见,涉及国会干预联邦法院未决案件的能力的限制。克莱恩很有意思,因为它宽泛而有力的语言表明国会的权力受到了重大限制。克莱因是个谜,因为最高法院再也没有因为克莱因而推翻过一项法令,甚至没有明确说明是什么原则使其结果生动起来。事实上,尽管法院重申了以克莱因为基础的原则的存在,但法院一再对其进行狭义解读,认为其所体现的原则没有得到充分阐述。这篇文章认为,克莱因的原则是一个强有力的宪法传统的具体应用,它限制了政府的自我交易。限制政府自我交易的克莱因原则解释了法院的克莱因案件,将该原则置于宪法理论和学说中,并为下级法院解决立法干预司法职能的问题提供了急需的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Klein Rule of Decision Puzzle and the Self-Dealing Solution
Scholars and courts have struggled to make sense of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Klein, an intriguing but enigmatic opinion concerning the limits of Congress’s ability to interfere with cases pending before the federal courts. Klein is intriguing because its broad and emphatic language suggests significant limits on the power of Congress. Klein is enigmatic because the Court has never again struck down a statute because of Klein or even made clear what principle animates its result. In fact, despite reaffirming the existence of a principle based on Klein, the Court has repeatedly read it narrowly, suggesting that the principle it embodies has not been adequately articulated. This Article argues that Klein’s principle is a specific application of a robust constitutional tradition that restrains governmental self-dealing. A Klein principle restraining governmental self-dealing explains the Court’s Klein cases, situates the principle within constitutional theory and doctrine, and provides much-needed direction to lower courts wrestling with questions about legislative intrusions into judicial functions.
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