民主、反民主与正典

R. Pildes
{"title":"民主、反民主与正典","authors":"R. Pildes","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.224731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The most momentous but ignored case in U.S. Supreme Court history is probably Justice Holmes' opinion upholding the massive disfranchisement of black and poor white voters, through newly formed Southern state constitutions, that took place from 1890-1908. This essay provides historical context for Giles v. Harris (1903) and traces the doctrinal implications for 20th Century constitutional law of Holmes' conclusion that federal courts would not hear claims involving \"political rights.\" Giles is virtually ignored in the principal sources of the constitutional canon, including the leading Constitutional Law casebooks. The essay argues that this reflects the larger absence from the conventional constitutional canon of the subject of democracy itself as a systematic focus of study in its own right. By recovering the political, social, and Supreme Court history of the destruction through law of democracy in the early part of the 20th century, this essay contributes to a larger project of seeking to place democracy itself at the center of constitutional thought.","PeriodicalId":81001,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional commentary","volume":"17 1","pages":"295-319"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Democracy, Anti-Democracy, and the Canon\",\"authors\":\"R. Pildes\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.224731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The most momentous but ignored case in U.S. Supreme Court history is probably Justice Holmes' opinion upholding the massive disfranchisement of black and poor white voters, through newly formed Southern state constitutions, that took place from 1890-1908. This essay provides historical context for Giles v. Harris (1903) and traces the doctrinal implications for 20th Century constitutional law of Holmes' conclusion that federal courts would not hear claims involving \\\"political rights.\\\" Giles is virtually ignored in the principal sources of the constitutional canon, including the leading Constitutional Law casebooks. The essay argues that this reflects the larger absence from the conventional constitutional canon of the subject of democracy itself as a systematic focus of study in its own right. By recovering the political, social, and Supreme Court history of the destruction through law of democracy in the early part of the 20th century, this essay contributes to a larger project of seeking to place democracy itself at the center of constitutional thought.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Constitutional commentary\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"295-319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Constitutional commentary\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.224731\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional commentary","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.224731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

美国最高法院历史上最重要但却被忽视的案件可能是霍姆斯大法官的意见,他在1890年至1908年期间通过新成立的南方各州宪法,支持大规模剥夺黑人和贫穷白人选民的选举权。本文提供了贾尔斯诉哈里斯案(Giles v. Harris, 1903)的历史背景,并追溯了霍姆斯关于联邦法院不会审理涉及“政治权利”的诉讼的结论对20世纪宪法的理论意义。在宪法经典的主要来源中,包括主要的宪法判例书中,贾尔斯几乎被忽视了。这篇文章认为,这反映了传统宪法经典中民主主题本身作为一个系统的研究焦点的更大缺失。通过回顾20世纪早期民主被法律破坏的政治、社会和最高法院历史,这篇文章有助于一个更大的项目,即寻求将民主本身置于宪法思想的中心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Democracy, Anti-Democracy, and the Canon
The most momentous but ignored case in U.S. Supreme Court history is probably Justice Holmes' opinion upholding the massive disfranchisement of black and poor white voters, through newly formed Southern state constitutions, that took place from 1890-1908. This essay provides historical context for Giles v. Harris (1903) and traces the doctrinal implications for 20th Century constitutional law of Holmes' conclusion that federal courts would not hear claims involving "political rights." Giles is virtually ignored in the principal sources of the constitutional canon, including the leading Constitutional Law casebooks. The essay argues that this reflects the larger absence from the conventional constitutional canon of the subject of democracy itself as a systematic focus of study in its own right. By recovering the political, social, and Supreme Court history of the destruction through law of democracy in the early part of the 20th century, this essay contributes to a larger project of seeking to place democracy itself at the center of constitutional thought.
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