第四章。“大自然赋予所有人的权利”

P. Hoffer, W. Hoffer
{"title":"第四章。“大自然赋予所有人的权利”","authors":"P. Hoffer, W. Hoffer","doi":"10.7591/CORNELL/9781501726071.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Between 1773 and 1775, lawyers who favored resistance shifted from arguments that looked like common law pleading to hybrids, part legal, part political. Content followed form, as they cast off from the familiar shores of English liberty to chart a course through what modern jurists have called rights talk. In the process, the revolutionary lawyers did not abandon the common law entirely but used legal modes of reasoning to transform the common law from a body of precedent to an abstract ideal of what good law should be, a kind of meta-law. One should be careful in dealing with terms here. “Rights talk” is now a staple of liberal jurisprudence associated with Civil Rights advocacy, while conservative jurisprudence is primarily concerned with private property rights. The revolutionary lawyers did not divide these topics—they saw personal liberty and the sanctity of private property as part of the same cause.","PeriodicalId":217492,"journal":{"name":"The Clamor of Lawyers","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chapter 4. “A Right Which Nature Has Given to All Men”\",\"authors\":\"P. Hoffer, W. Hoffer\",\"doi\":\"10.7591/CORNELL/9781501726071.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Between 1773 and 1775, lawyers who favored resistance shifted from arguments that looked like common law pleading to hybrids, part legal, part political. Content followed form, as they cast off from the familiar shores of English liberty to chart a course through what modern jurists have called rights talk. In the process, the revolutionary lawyers did not abandon the common law entirely but used legal modes of reasoning to transform the common law from a body of precedent to an abstract ideal of what good law should be, a kind of meta-law. One should be careful in dealing with terms here. “Rights talk” is now a staple of liberal jurisprudence associated with Civil Rights advocacy, while conservative jurisprudence is primarily concerned with private property rights. The revolutionary lawyers did not divide these topics—they saw personal liberty and the sanctity of private property as part of the same cause.\",\"PeriodicalId\":217492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Clamor of Lawyers\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Clamor of Lawyers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7591/CORNELL/9781501726071.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Clamor of Lawyers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7591/CORNELL/9781501726071.003.0005","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

在1773年到1775年之间,支持抵抗运动的律师们从看起来像普通法辩护的辩论转向了混合辩论,部分法律,部分政治。内容随形式而行,他们从熟悉的英国自由海岸出发,通过现代法学家所说的“权利对话”,开辟了一条道路。在这个过程中,革命的法学家并没有完全抛弃普通法,而是运用法律推理模式将普通法从一个判例体转变为一种关于什么是好法的抽象理想,一种元法。在处理这里的术语时要小心。“权利谈话”现在是自由主义法理学的主要内容,与民权倡导有关,而保守主义法理学主要关注私有财产权。革命的律师们并没有把这些话题分开——他们认为个人自由和私有财产的神圣性是同一事业的一部分。
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
Chapter 4. “A Right Which Nature Has Given to All Men”
Between 1773 and 1775, lawyers who favored resistance shifted from arguments that looked like common law pleading to hybrids, part legal, part political. Content followed form, as they cast off from the familiar shores of English liberty to chart a course through what modern jurists have called rights talk. In the process, the revolutionary lawyers did not abandon the common law entirely but used legal modes of reasoning to transform the common law from a body of precedent to an abstract ideal of what good law should be, a kind of meta-law. One should be careful in dealing with terms here. “Rights talk” is now a staple of liberal jurisprudence associated with Civil Rights advocacy, while conservative jurisprudence is primarily concerned with private property rights. The revolutionary lawyers did not divide these topics—they saw personal liberty and the sanctity of private property as part of the same cause.
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
Index Frontmatter Chapter 3. “My Dear Countrymen Rouse Yourselves” A Note on Sources Chapter 1. “The Worst Instrument of Arbitrary Power”
×
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