编纂宪法规范

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Jon B. Gould
{"title":"编纂宪法规范","authors":"Jon B. Gould","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3769465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ours is an era of fraying constitutional norms. Norms that long governed the conduct of public officials have in recent years been violated by the White House, in Congress, and in the states. In the face of threats to constitutional norms, some have proposed codifying constitutional norms—that is, enacting their content into law. \n \nThis Article examines the dynamics around codifying constitutional norms. It begins by showing that codification efforts face both practical and legal barriers. Practically, it can be difficult to define the precise contours of a constitutional norm and to codify a norm in a polarized political environment. Legally, constitutional law precludes Congress from codifying many of the most important constitutional norms. \n \nThe Article then shows that codifying constitutional norms can have significant potential benefits, but that codification is not without costs. Codification holds the promise of promoting greater compliance with norms, typically by making them legally enforceable, but codification can have unintended consequences and in some cases may actually weaken norms. Codification can clarify and stabilize norms that might otherwise be vague or unstable, but codification also risks ossifying norms by denying them the ability to evolve. And codifying a norm can shift power among institutional actors, including by giving courts a role where they previously had none. \n \nFinally, the Article contends that understanding the benefits and costs of codification provides insight into when and how codification is appropriate. The desirability of codification will depend on the institution doing the codifying and the legal vehicle being used for codification. Codification will be more appropriate for rule-like norms than for standard-like norms. Codification through soft law or rules internal to a branch of government may sometimes be superior to codification via a judicially enforceable statute. And norms can be protected indirectly, rather than through directly codifying their content. Even when codifying norms is possible and advisable, however, codification cannot serve as a substitute for better politics.","PeriodicalId":47702,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Journal","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Codifying Constitutional Norms\",\"authors\":\"Jon B. Gould\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3769465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ours is an era of fraying constitutional norms. Norms that long governed the conduct of public officials have in recent years been violated by the White House, in Congress, and in the states. In the face of threats to constitutional norms, some have proposed codifying constitutional norms—that is, enacting their content into law. \\n \\nThis Article examines the dynamics around codifying constitutional norms. It begins by showing that codification efforts face both practical and legal barriers. Practically, it can be difficult to define the precise contours of a constitutional norm and to codify a norm in a polarized political environment. Legally, constitutional law precludes Congress from codifying many of the most important constitutional norms. \\n \\nThe Article then shows that codifying constitutional norms can have significant potential benefits, but that codification is not without costs. Codification holds the promise of promoting greater compliance with norms, typically by making them legally enforceable, but codification can have unintended consequences and in some cases may actually weaken norms. Codification can clarify and stabilize norms that might otherwise be vague or unstable, but codification also risks ossifying norms by denying them the ability to evolve. And codifying a norm can shift power among institutional actors, including by giving courts a role where they previously had none. \\n \\nFinally, the Article contends that understanding the benefits and costs of codification provides insight into when and how codification is appropriate. The desirability of codification will depend on the institution doing the codifying and the legal vehicle being used for codification. Codification will be more appropriate for rule-like norms than for standard-like norms. Codification through soft law or rules internal to a branch of government may sometimes be superior to codification via a judicially enforceable statute. And norms can be protected indirectly, rather than through directly codifying their content. Even when codifying norms is possible and advisable, however, codification cannot serve as a substitute for better politics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Georgetown Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Georgetown Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3769465\",\"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":"Georgetown Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3769465","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

我们所处的时代是一个宪法规范磨损的时代。近年来,白宫、国会和各州都违反了长期以来支配公职人员行为的准则。面对对宪法规范的威胁,一些人提议编纂宪法规范——也就是说,将其内容写入法律。本文考察了围绕宪法规范编纂的动态。它首先表明编纂工作面临着实际和法律上的障碍。实际上,在两极分化的政治环境中,很难界定宪法规范的精确轮廓,也很难将规范编纂成法律。从法律上讲,宪法禁止国会编纂许多最重要的宪法规范。然后,文章表明,编纂宪法规范可以有显着的潜在利益,但编纂不是没有成本。法典化有望促进对规范的更大遵从,通常是通过使它们具有法律上的可执行性,但法典化可能产生意想不到的后果,在某些情况下可能实际上削弱了规范。法典化可以澄清和稳定原本可能模糊或不稳定的规范,但法典化也有使规范僵化的风险,因为它剥夺了规范发展的能力。编纂规范可以在机构行为者之间转移权力,包括赋予法院以前没有的作用。最后,本文认为,了解法典化的收益和成本有助于洞察何时以及如何进行法典化是适当的。编纂的可取性将取决于编纂机构和用于编纂的法律工具。编纂将更适合于类似规则的规范,而不是类似标准的规范。通过软法律或政府部门内部的规则进行编纂有时可能优于通过司法上可执行的法规进行编纂。规范可以间接受到保护,而不是通过直接编纂其内容。然而,即使规范法典化是可能的和可取的,法典化也不能代替更好的政治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Codifying Constitutional Norms
Ours is an era of fraying constitutional norms. Norms that long governed the conduct of public officials have in recent years been violated by the White House, in Congress, and in the states. In the face of threats to constitutional norms, some have proposed codifying constitutional norms—that is, enacting their content into law. This Article examines the dynamics around codifying constitutional norms. It begins by showing that codification efforts face both practical and legal barriers. Practically, it can be difficult to define the precise contours of a constitutional norm and to codify a norm in a polarized political environment. Legally, constitutional law precludes Congress from codifying many of the most important constitutional norms. The Article then shows that codifying constitutional norms can have significant potential benefits, but that codification is not without costs. Codification holds the promise of promoting greater compliance with norms, typically by making them legally enforceable, but codification can have unintended consequences and in some cases may actually weaken norms. Codification can clarify and stabilize norms that might otherwise be vague or unstable, but codification also risks ossifying norms by denying them the ability to evolve. And codifying a norm can shift power among institutional actors, including by giving courts a role where they previously had none. Finally, the Article contends that understanding the benefits and costs of codification provides insight into when and how codification is appropriate. The desirability of codification will depend on the institution doing the codifying and the legal vehicle being used for codification. Codification will be more appropriate for rule-like norms than for standard-like norms. Codification through soft law or rules internal to a branch of government may sometimes be superior to codification via a judicially enforceable statute. And norms can be protected indirectly, rather than through directly codifying their content. Even when codifying norms is possible and advisable, however, codification cannot serve as a substitute for better politics.
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
0.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Georgetown Law Journal is headquartered at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. and has since its inception published more than 500 issues, as well as the widely-used Annual Review of Criminal Procedure (ARCP). The Journal is currently, and always has been, run by law students.
×
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