鲍威尔法官会怎么做?“外籍儿童”案及其平等保护的意义

L. Greenhouse
{"title":"鲍威尔法官会怎么做?“外籍儿童”案及其平等保护的意义","authors":"L. Greenhouse","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1803609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current immigration debate adds renewed relevance to the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, holding that a state that provided a free public education to any child had to provide it to all children, including undocumented immigrants. Justice Brennan wrote for a 5-4 Court, with the full, if seemingly unlikely, concurrence of his conservative colleague, Lewis F. Powell Jr. This article tells the back story of how these two very different Justices came to agreement in this important case.","PeriodicalId":81001,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional commentary","volume":"25 1","pages":"29-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Would Justice Powell Do? The 'Alien Children' Case and the Meaning of Equal Protection\",\"authors\":\"L. Greenhouse\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1803609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The current immigration debate adds renewed relevance to the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, holding that a state that provided a free public education to any child had to provide it to all children, including undocumented immigrants. Justice Brennan wrote for a 5-4 Court, with the full, if seemingly unlikely, concurrence of his conservative colleague, Lewis F. Powell Jr. This article tells the back story of how these two very different Justices came to agreement in this important case.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Constitutional commentary\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"29-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Constitutional commentary\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1803609\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional commentary","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1803609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目前关于移民问题的辩论与1982年最高法院在普莱勒诉多伊案(Plyler v. Doe)中作出的裁决有新的关联。该裁决认为,一个向任何儿童提供免费公共教育的州,必须向所有儿童提供免费公共教育,包括非法移民。布伦南大法官为5票赞成、4票反对的最高法院做出裁决,他的保守派同事小刘易斯·f·鲍威尔(Lewis F. Powell Jr.)虽然看似不太可能,但完全同意。本文讲述了这两位截然不同的大法官如何在这个重要案件中达成一致的背景故事。
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
What Would Justice Powell Do? The 'Alien Children' Case and the Meaning of Equal Protection
The current immigration debate adds renewed relevance to the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, holding that a state that provided a free public education to any child had to provide it to all children, including undocumented immigrants. Justice Brennan wrote for a 5-4 Court, with the full, if seemingly unlikely, concurrence of his conservative colleague, Lewis F. Powell Jr. This article tells the back story of how these two very different Justices came to agreement in this important case.
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
The Reality Principle The Constitutional Marriage of Personality and Impersonality: Office, Honor, and the Oath Originalist Theory and Precedent: A Public Meaning Approach Taking Legitimacy Seriously: A Return to Deontology Family Reunification and the Security State
×
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