下一个正义的真神

Douglas Wilder, Arthur Schlesinger
{"title":"下一个正义的真神","authors":"Douglas Wilder, Arthur Schlesinger","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.282425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For a decade or more, American constitutional discourse has emitted a detectable odor of bigotry toward Roman Catholics who embrace the papal encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. The reason is the Supreme Court's politically dominant role on questions of abortion. An unconstitutional litmus test may be emerging against Roman Catholics who obey the Pope's encyclicals and against those of other faiths who similarly oppose abortion as a matter of religious belief. The acrimony over abortion has obscured the relevance of the Religious Test Clause of the Constitution to the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. It is both intractable and improper for senators to question a judicial nominee about either the tenets of his religious sect or the intensity of his religious devotion. As a practical matter, however, this prohibition is easily evaded, and no judicially enforceable public sanction or private remedy appears to exist. Unless the Senate is prepared to punish such misconduct - a highly doubtful proposition - the Constitution's explicit textual prohibition against religious tests for officeholders will be gutted in the name of advancing a more politically popular constitutional right that is not found in the text of the Constitution.","PeriodicalId":81001,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional commentary","volume":"18 1","pages":"9-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"True God of the Next Justice\",\"authors\":\"Douglas Wilder, Arthur Schlesinger\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.282425\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For a decade or more, American constitutional discourse has emitted a detectable odor of bigotry toward Roman Catholics who embrace the papal encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. The reason is the Supreme Court's politically dominant role on questions of abortion. An unconstitutional litmus test may be emerging against Roman Catholics who obey the Pope's encyclicals and against those of other faiths who similarly oppose abortion as a matter of religious belief. The acrimony over abortion has obscured the relevance of the Religious Test Clause of the Constitution to the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. It is both intractable and improper for senators to question a judicial nominee about either the tenets of his religious sect or the intensity of his religious devotion. As a practical matter, however, this prohibition is easily evaded, and no judicially enforceable public sanction or private remedy appears to exist. Unless the Senate is prepared to punish such misconduct - a highly doubtful proposition - the Constitution's explicit textual prohibition against religious tests for officeholders will be gutted in the name of advancing a more politically popular constitutional right that is not found in the text of the Constitution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Constitutional commentary\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"9-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Constitutional commentary\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.282425\",\"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.282425","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

十多年来,美国的宪法话语对信奉教皇约翰·保罗二世(John Paul II)教皇通谕的罗马天主教徒散发出一种明显的偏见。原因是最高法院在堕胎问题上的政治主导作用。反对服从教皇通谕的罗马天主教徒和反对同样将堕胎作为宗教信仰的其他宗教信仰的人,可能会出现一个违宪的试金石。在堕胎问题上的激烈争论掩盖了宪法中宗教测试条款与最高法院大法官提名和确认的相关性。参议员质疑司法提名人的宗教信仰或他对宗教的虔诚程度既棘手又不恰当。然而,作为一个实际问题,这一禁令很容易被规避,而且似乎不存在司法上可执行的公共制裁或私人补救办法。除非参议院准备惩罚这种不当行为——这是一个非常值得怀疑的命题——否则,宪法明文禁止对公职人员进行宗教测试的禁令,将会以推进一项在宪法文本中找不到的政治上更受欢迎的宪法权利的名义而遭到破坏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
True God of the Next Justice
For a decade or more, American constitutional discourse has emitted a detectable odor of bigotry toward Roman Catholics who embrace the papal encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. The reason is the Supreme Court's politically dominant role on questions of abortion. An unconstitutional litmus test may be emerging against Roman Catholics who obey the Pope's encyclicals and against those of other faiths who similarly oppose abortion as a matter of religious belief. The acrimony over abortion has obscured the relevance of the Religious Test Clause of the Constitution to the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. It is both intractable and improper for senators to question a judicial nominee about either the tenets of his religious sect or the intensity of his religious devotion. As a practical matter, however, this prohibition is easily evaded, and no judicially enforceable public sanction or private remedy appears to exist. Unless the Senate is prepared to punish such misconduct - a highly doubtful proposition - the Constitution's explicit textual prohibition against religious tests for officeholders will be gutted in the name of advancing a more politically popular constitutional right that is not found in the text of the Constitution.
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