Pub Date : 2020-05-26DOI: 10.1016/b978-141603364-6.50001-x
A. Paik
{"title":"Preface: How to use this book","authors":"A. Paik","doi":"10.1016/b978-141603364-6.50001-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-141603364-6.50001-x","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":259988,"journal":{"name":"Bans, Walls, Raids, Sanctuary","volume":"275 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125844313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the universe of legal restrictions subject to judicial review, those characterized as fully denying some aspect of a constitutional right—“bans”— are often subject to per se rules of invalidity. Whether the subject of the restriction is a medium of expression, the valuable use of property, or a class of weapons, courts in such cases will often short-circuit the standard doctrinal machinery and strike down the law, even if it might have survived heightened scrutiny. Identifying laws as bans can thus provide an end run around the tiers of scrutiny and other familiar forms of means-ends analysis. And yet it is surprisingly difficult to identify what makes a law a ban, and why that characterization should matter. Why are yard signs an “entire medium of expression,” or assault weapons an “entire class of ‘arms’”? Why does it matter if they are completely prohibited? If the ban label is to have such important constitutional consequences, these questions must be brought to the foreground. Using the emerging jurisprudence of the Second Amendment as an illustration, this Article explores functional, formal, and purposivist answers. It argues that none of these answers can avoid judicial discretion in the way that some proponents of rules-based jurisprudence might wish. But the ban framework might nonetheless be defensible in a limited set of cases, especially on functional grounds, as a shorthand for the conclusion that a challenged law impermissibly interferes with rightsholders’ ability to effectuate their constitutional interests. * Lanty L. Smith ’67 Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law. Many thanks to Jacob D. Charles, Brandon Garrett, Joshua Kleinfeld, Andy Koppelman, Alex Tsesis, and Eugene Volokh for suggestions, to workshop participants at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, and to Izaak Earnhardt and Tianye Zhang for excellent research assistance. 2 YALE L.J. [8-Oct-19
在受司法审查的法律限制范围内，那些以完全否认宪法权利的某些方面为特征的限制- -“禁令”- -往往受到本身无效规则的约束。无论限制的对象是一种表达媒介、财产的有价值使用，还是一类武器，在这种情况下，法院往往会使标准的理论机制短路，并废除法律，即使它可能经受住了严格的审查。因此，将法律确定为禁令可以提供一种绕过层层审查和其他常见形式的手段-目的分析的最终途径。然而，令人惊讶的是，很难确定是什么使一项法律成为禁令，以及为什么这种定性应该重要。为什么庭院标志是一种“完整的表达媒介”，或者攻击性武器是“一整类‘武器’”?如果它们被完全禁止又有什么关系呢?如果禁令标签具有如此重要的宪法后果，这些问题必须被提出来。本文以第二修正案的新兴法理学为例，探讨了功能主义、形式主义和目的主义的答案。它认为，这些答案都不能像一些基于规则的法理学的支持者所希望的那样，避免司法自由裁量权。但是，禁令框架在有限的案例中可能是站得住的，特别是在功能上，作为一个结论的简写，即受到质疑的法律不允许干涉权利持有人实现其宪法利益的能力。Lanty L. Smith，杜克大学法学院67届法学教授。非常感谢Jacob D. Charles, Brandon Garrett, Joshua Kleinfeld, Andy Koppelman, Alex tesis和Eugene Volokh的建议，感谢西北普利兹克法学院的研讨会参与者，以及Izaak Earnhardt和Tianye Zhang的出色研究协助。[2]杨丽娟
{"title":"Bans","authors":"Joseph Blocher","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv11hpsmj.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11hpsmj.6","url":null,"abstract":"In the universe of legal restrictions subject to judicial review, those characterized as fully denying some aspect of a constitutional right—“bans”— are often subject to per se rules of invalidity. Whether the subject of the restriction is a medium of expression, the valuable use of property, or a class of weapons, courts in such cases will often short-circuit the standard doctrinal machinery and strike down the law, even if it might have survived heightened scrutiny. Identifying laws as bans can thus provide an end run around the tiers of scrutiny and other familiar forms of means-ends analysis. And yet it is surprisingly difficult to identify what makes a law a ban, and why that characterization should matter. Why are yard signs an “entire medium of expression,” or assault weapons an “entire class of ‘arms’”? Why does it matter if they are completely prohibited? If the ban label is to have such important constitutional consequences, these questions must be brought to the foreground. Using the emerging jurisprudence of the Second Amendment as an illustration, this Article explores functional, formal, and purposivist answers. It argues that none of these answers can avoid judicial discretion in the way that some proponents of rules-based jurisprudence might wish. But the ban framework might nonetheless be defensible in a limited set of cases, especially on functional grounds, as a shorthand for the conclusion that a challenged law impermissibly interferes with rightsholders’ ability to effectuate their constitutional interests. * Lanty L. Smith ’67 Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law. Many thanks to Jacob D. Charles, Brandon Garrett, Joshua Kleinfeld, Andy Koppelman, Alex Tsesis, and Eugene Volokh for suggestions, to workshop participants at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, and to Izaak Earnhardt and Tianye Zhang for excellent research assistance. 2 YALE L.J. [8-Oct-19","PeriodicalId":259988,"journal":{"name":"Bans, Walls, Raids, Sanctuary","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121830992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-26DOI: 10.1525/9780520973268-002
A. Paik
{"title":"Preface: How to use this book","authors":"A. Paik","doi":"10.1525/9780520973268-002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520973268-002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":259988,"journal":{"name":"Bans, Walls, Raids, Sanctuary","volume":"12 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141202937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：