在雪松点摊牌:“唯一和专制的统治”取得进展

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
C. Estlund
{"title":"在雪松点摊牌:“唯一和专制的统治”取得进展","authors":"C. Estlund","doi":"10.1086/720149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Blackstone famously declared: “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.” That seems to be so, if not for all “mankind,” then at least for the current majority of the Supreme Court. In the modern era, the deregulatory impact of property rights and takings law has been blunted by the dominant role of ad hoc balancing. Advocates, scholars, and judges seeking to sharpen the takings challenge to regulation have thus focused their efforts on creating and expanding “per se rules” that circumvent the default regime of balancing. So perhaps it should be no surprise that the first major takings case decided by the lopsidedly conservative Supreme Court that took the bench in 2020 produced a resounding victory for private property","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":"2021 1","pages":"125 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Showdown at Cedar Point: “Sole and Despotic Dominion” Gains Ground\",\"authors\":\"C. Estlund\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/720149\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Blackstone famously declared: “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.” That seems to be so, if not for all “mankind,” then at least for the current majority of the Supreme Court. In the modern era, the deregulatory impact of property rights and takings law has been blunted by the dominant role of ad hoc balancing. Advocates, scholars, and judges seeking to sharpen the takings challenge to regulation have thus focused their efforts on creating and expanding “per se rules” that circumvent the default regime of balancing. So perhaps it should be no surprise that the first major takings case decided by the lopsidedly conservative Supreme Court that took the bench in 2020 produced a resounding victory for private property\",\"PeriodicalId\":46006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Supreme Court Review\",\"volume\":\"2021 1\",\"pages\":\"125 - 154\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Supreme Court Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/720149\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supreme Court Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720149","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

布莱克斯通曾说过一句著名的话:“没有什么能像财产权或一个人对世界外部事物声称和行使的唯一专制统治那样,完全排除宇宙中任何其他个人的权利,如此普遍地引起人们的想象和喜爱。”,如果不是为了所有“人类”,那么至少是为了目前最高法院的大多数人。在现代,产权和征用法的放松管制影响已经被临时平衡的主导作用所削弱。因此,寻求加强对监管的收入挑战的倡导者、学者和法官将精力集中在创建和扩大“本身规则”上,以规避默认的平衡制度。因此,2020年,极为保守的最高法院开庭审理了第一起重大侵占案,这或许并不奇怪,因为这起案件为私人财产带来了巨大的胜利
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Showdown at Cedar Point: “Sole and Despotic Dominion” Gains Ground
Blackstone famously declared: “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.” That seems to be so, if not for all “mankind,” then at least for the current majority of the Supreme Court. In the modern era, the deregulatory impact of property rights and takings law has been blunted by the dominant role of ad hoc balancing. Advocates, scholars, and judges seeking to sharpen the takings challenge to regulation have thus focused their efforts on creating and expanding “per se rules” that circumvent the default regime of balancing. So perhaps it should be no surprise that the first major takings case decided by the lopsidedly conservative Supreme Court that took the bench in 2020 produced a resounding victory for private property
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
1.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court"s most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
×
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