宪法判例与四种基本美德

R. Wright, R. McKinney
{"title":"宪法判例与四种基本美德","authors":"R. Wright, R. McKinney","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2019958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Judges typically decide constitutional cases by referring to one or more legal precedents, rules, tests, principles, doctrines, or policies. This Article recommends supplementing this standard approach with fully legitimate and appropriate attention to what many cultures have long recognized as the four basic cardinal virtues of practical wisdom or reasonable prudence, courage or fortitude, temperance or reasonable self-restraint, and justice as the disposition to give everyone their due. The Article illustrates the legitimacy and usefulness of this supplementary approach, with judicial attention being paid either to government actors or to some broader public, in a range of important constitutional cases. Part of the justification for this Article’s recommended approach is drawn directly from reflection on the case law, but the Article also draws upon philosophical discussions of the basic virtues from many cultures in order to address a number of possible critical concerns.","PeriodicalId":258683,"journal":{"name":"The Cleveland State Law Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constitutional Cases and the Four Cardinal Virtues\",\"authors\":\"R. Wright, R. McKinney\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2019958\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Judges typically decide constitutional cases by referring to one or more legal precedents, rules, tests, principles, doctrines, or policies. This Article recommends supplementing this standard approach with fully legitimate and appropriate attention to what many cultures have long recognized as the four basic cardinal virtues of practical wisdom or reasonable prudence, courage or fortitude, temperance or reasonable self-restraint, and justice as the disposition to give everyone their due. The Article illustrates the legitimacy and usefulness of this supplementary approach, with judicial attention being paid either to government actors or to some broader public, in a range of important constitutional cases. Part of the justification for this Article’s recommended approach is drawn directly from reflection on the case law, but the Article also draws upon philosophical discussions of the basic virtues from many cultures in order to address a number of possible critical concerns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":258683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cleveland State Law Review\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cleveland State Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2019958\",\"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 Cleveland State Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2019958","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

法官通常通过参考一个或多个法律先例、规则、测试、原则、理论或政策来裁决宪法案件。本文建议补充这一标准方法,充分合理和适当地关注许多文化长期以来所认为的四种基本美德,即实践智慧或合理谨慎、勇气或坚韧、节制或合理自我约束,以及作为给予每个人应得的倾向的正义。该条说明了这种补充方法的合法性和有效性,在一系列重要的宪法案件中,司法注意力要么集中在政府行为者身上,要么集中在更广泛的公众身上。本文推荐的方法的部分理由直接来自对判例法的反思,但本文也借鉴了许多文化中对基本美德的哲学讨论,以解决一些可能的关键问题。
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
Constitutional Cases and the Four Cardinal Virtues
Judges typically decide constitutional cases by referring to one or more legal precedents, rules, tests, principles, doctrines, or policies. This Article recommends supplementing this standard approach with fully legitimate and appropriate attention to what many cultures have long recognized as the four basic cardinal virtues of practical wisdom or reasonable prudence, courage or fortitude, temperance or reasonable self-restraint, and justice as the disposition to give everyone their due. The Article illustrates the legitimacy and usefulness of this supplementary approach, with judicial attention being paid either to government actors or to some broader public, in a range of important constitutional cases. Part of the justification for this Article’s recommended approach is drawn directly from reflection on the case law, but the Article also draws upon philosophical discussions of the basic virtues from many cultures in order to address a number of possible critical concerns.
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
Masterpiece Cakeshop's Homiletics The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Incapacity and Ability to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office? How Big Money Ruined Public Life in Wisconsin The Duty to Charge in Police Use of Excessive Force Cases Book Review: Analyzing the Effectiveness of the Tallinn Manual’s Jus Ad Bellum Doctrine on Cyberconflict,: A NATO-Centric Approach
×
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