走向建设性的宪法史

James E. Pfander
{"title":"走向建设性的宪法史","authors":"James E. Pfander","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the lessons for the theory of constitutional adjudication that emerge from this book’s account of the meaning of cases and controversies in Article III. Proposing a constructive or synthetic approach to constitutional interpretation, the chapter urges the U.S. Supreme Court to substitute a litigable interest standard for the modern case-or-controversy rule. Such an approach would enable the Court to uphold the right of individuals to pursue uncontested claims as authorized by Congress and to continue to insist on adversary presentations in the disputes that parties present to federal court for resolution. The constructive approach advocated here differs from the position sometimes advanced by originalists in that it seeks to accommodate the lessons of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries in formulating a measure of the limits of judicial power.","PeriodicalId":394146,"journal":{"name":"Cases Without Controversies","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward a Constructive Constitutional History\",\"authors\":\"James E. Pfander\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter explores the lessons for the theory of constitutional adjudication that emerge from this book’s account of the meaning of cases and controversies in Article III. Proposing a constructive or synthetic approach to constitutional interpretation, the chapter urges the U.S. Supreme Court to substitute a litigable interest standard for the modern case-or-controversy rule. Such an approach would enable the Court to uphold the right of individuals to pursue uncontested claims as authorized by Congress and to continue to insist on adversary presentations in the disputes that parties present to federal court for resolution. The constructive approach advocated here differs from the position sometimes advanced by originalists in that it seeks to accommodate the lessons of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries in formulating a measure of the limits of judicial power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":394146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cases Without Controversies\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cases Without Controversies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cases Without Controversies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0013","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

本章探讨了宪法裁决理论的教训,这些教训来自本书对第三条中案件和争议的含义的描述。本章提出了一种建设性的或综合的宪法解释方法,敦促美国最高法院用可诉利益标准取代现代的案件或争议规则。这种做法将使法院能够维护个人根据国会授权提出无争议索赔的权利,并继续坚持在当事方向联邦法院提出解决的争端中进行对手陈述。这里提倡的建设性方法不同于原旨主义者有时提出的立场,因为它试图在制定司法权限制的措施时,适应18、19和20世纪的教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Toward a Constructive Constitutional History
This chapter explores the lessons for the theory of constitutional adjudication that emerge from this book’s account of the meaning of cases and controversies in Article III. Proposing a constructive or synthetic approach to constitutional interpretation, the chapter urges the U.S. Supreme Court to substitute a litigable interest standard for the modern case-or-controversy rule. Such an approach would enable the Court to uphold the right of individuals to pursue uncontested claims as authorized by Congress and to continue to insist on adversary presentations in the disputes that parties present to federal court for resolution. The constructive approach advocated here differs from the position sometimes advanced by originalists in that it seeks to accommodate the lessons of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries in formulating a measure of the limits of judicial power.
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
期刊最新文献
Uncontested Adjudication and Standing to Sue The New Adverse-Party Rule Confronts Judicial Practice The Origins of Uncontested Adjudication Evaluating Defenses of a Requirement of Adverse Interests Uncontested Adjudication and the Modern Case-or-Controversy Rule
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1