首页> 外文学位 >COURTS, DOLLARS AND SCHOOLS: THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION AND ITS AFTERMATH.
【24h】

COURTS, DOLLARS AND SCHOOLS: THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION AND ITS AFTERMATH.

机译:法院,美元和学校:加州学校财务诉讼及其后果。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

During recent years, courts in the United States have in many instances attempted to force other agencies of government to take some sort of affirmative action. In doing so, they have sought repeatedly to force those other agencies to act where, left to their own accord, they would choose not to do so. A specific example of a situation of this sort is the United States Supreme Court’s entry into the field of race relations with the issuance of the Brown decision in 1954. Quite obviously, in rendering that decision, the nation’s highest court was seeking to force local school boards to act in a manner distinctly at odds with how they would otherwise have chosen to proceed.;What this exploration leads to is the conclusion that, although courts can and do force other agencies to act, their ability to do so is nonetheless limited. Specifically, it would appear that courts can act as agenda setters, thereby forcing other agencies of government to at least consider issues they otherwise would have ignored. Courts also, it would seem, can play some role in the molding of the substantive provisions of a given policy. There, though, their impact would appear not to be a particularly great one; rather, in that regard it would seem that all they are capable of doing is simply prodding other policy-makers in a given direction but little more. Indeed, it would appear that the capacity of courts to act as actual molders of substantive policy is seriously undercut by the fact that the decisions they issue are merely one component of the overall political environment with which nonjudicial officials must be concerned.;In the Brown situation and others like it, a crucial question which has arisen is this: to what degree is a court able to force other agencies to act where they otherwise would not? It is, moreover, with this question that this dissertation is concerned. Specifically, this volume seeks to explore the capability of the courts to force unwilling agencies to act in a manner opposed to their natural inclination by exploring the California school finance litigation and the legislative responses to it.
机译:近年来,美国法院在许多情况下试图迫使其他政府机构采取某种平权行动。在这样做时,他们一再寻求迫使其他机构采取行动,由他们自己决定是否选择不这样做。这种情况的一个具体例子是,美国最高法院随着1954年布朗裁决的发布而进入种族关系领域。很显然,在做出该裁决时,美国最高法院试图强迫当地学校上学。董事会采取的行动方式与他们原本会选择的方式明显不同。;这项探索得出的结论是,尽管法院可以而且确实迫使其他机构采取行动,但是他们这样做的能力仍然有限。具体而言,法院似乎可以充当议程制定者的角色,从而迫使其他政府机构至少考虑否则会忽略的问题。法院似乎也可以在塑造特定政策的实质性规定中发挥某些作用。但是,在这里,它们的影响似乎并不是特别重要。相反,在这方面,他们似乎无所不能,只是在给定方向上敦促其他决策者,但仅此而已。的确,法院发布的决定仅仅是非司法官员必须关注的整体政治环境的一个组成部分,事实严重削弱了法院充当实质性政策制定者的能力。在形势和其他类似情况下,出现的一个关键问题是:法院在多大程度上能够迫使其他机构采取其他措施,而其他机构则无法采取行动?而且,这个问题与本文有关。具体而言,本卷旨在探讨法院通过调查加利福尼亚州学校财务诉讼及其立法对策,迫使不愿意的机构以与其自然倾向相反的方式采取行动的能力。

著录项

  • 作者

    TAYLOR, JOHN MICHAEL.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Arizona.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Arizona.;
  • 学科 Education Finance.;Political Science Public Administration.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1981
  • 页码 324 p.
  • 总页数 324
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号