首页> 外文OA文献 >Judicial Restraint and Constitutional Federalism: The Supreme Court's 'Lopez' and 'Seminole Tribe' Decisions
【2h】

Judicial Restraint and Constitutional Federalism: The Supreme Court's 'Lopez' and 'Seminole Tribe' Decisions

机译:司法克制和宪法联邦主义:最高法院的“洛佩兹”和“塞米利部落”决定

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The Senate hearings considering Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination called new attention to the Constitutionu27s Commerce Clause. That concern might seem odd, given the typical lack of strong grassroots concern over the commerce power. But the 2010 election year is different. One characteristic of the largely conservative u22Tea Partyu22 movement is a wish to roll back Constitutional time to the regime envisioned by its founders. As the New York Times reported in early July, 2010, members of the movement believe that the “commerce clause in particular has been pushed beyond recognition.” Members of the movement imagine that Congressional power over u22commerce among the statesu22 strictly requires two things. First, the action must relate to commercial exchange. Second, the transaction must be u22interstate,u22 involving participants or activities that actually cross a state line.The first of these views must be qualified and the second is incorrect. In the late eighteenth century the word u22commerceu22 frequently had a broader meaning than mere trade. The framersu27 own repeated use of the phrase u22trade or commerceu22 indicated that u22tradeu22 and u22commerceu22 were different things and could include both manufacturing and even “mutual dealings in common life,” as Webster put it in his 1828 American Dictionary.The phrase commerce u22among” the several states was certainly not intended to be limited to transactions that crossed a state line. If the framers had so intended they would have used the word u22betweenu22 as they did in the diversity jurisdiction clause, where they contemplated legal process flowing from a plaintiff in one state to a defendant in a different state. Eighteenth century writers distinguished the terms u22betweenu22 and u22amongu22 much more carefully than we do today. Commerce u22amongu22 the states had the same meaning as John Dickinsonu27s Letters From a Farmer arguing for repeal of export duties on goods made in the colonies, “for so doing may promote manufactures among them.u22 Or an 1800 writer in the Hartford Connecticut Courant could write that the states of Pennsylvania and New York u22have many men of intrigue and talents among them.u22 And New York Convention delegate Robert Yates could speak of the Articles of Confederation as intended u22to preserve peace among the states.u22 When the framers wanted to speak about a transaction or event that crossed from state A to state B they used u22between.u22 When they wanted to speak of an activity or state of affairs generally occurring within a certain area or areas they used u22among.u22
机译:考虑到Elena Kagan的最高法院提名参议院听证会称为“宪法”的新关注。鉴于典型缺乏对商务权力的疑虑缺乏强烈的基层,这令人担忧似乎很奇怪。但2010年的大选年是不同的。主要是保守的 U22TEA派对 U22运动的一个特征是希望回滚宪法时间到其创始人所设想的政权。正如纽约时报于2010年7月初报告的那样,该运动的成员认为“特别是商务条款被推动了以外的认可”。运动的成员想象,国会权力超过 u22组件 u22严格需要两件事。首先,行动必须与商业交流有关。其次,交易必须是 U22interstate, U22涉及实际跨国线的参与者或活动。第一个观看视图必须有资格,第二个是不正确的。在十八世纪末,这个词 u222mmerce u22经常比贸易更广泛。 Framers U27自己重复使用了短语 u22trade或commerce u22表示 u22trade u22和 u22commerce u22是不同的东西,并且可以包括制造业甚至“共同生命中的互相交易”,因为韦伯斯特把它置于他的1828年美国词典。这句话商务 u222among“肯定不旨在仅限于跨国线的交易。如果FRAMERS如此计划,他们将使用这个词 U22BETWEEN U22,因为它们在分集管辖区内所做的,他们预计从原告从一个州流入不同状态的被告的法律程序。十八世纪作家区分了术语 u22between u22和 u22among u22比我们今天的谨慎更小心。商业 u22among u22国家与约翰·迪金森 u27s从农民争论争论殖民地制造的货物的出口职责的农民争论相同的含义,“因为这样做可能会促进他们之间的制造商。 u22或1800作家哈特福德康涅狄格州的驻罗特可以写下宾夕法尼亚州和纽约的州和纽约 u22在他们中间的兴趣和才能的人。 u22和纽约公约代表罗伯特·耶特可以谈论联邦的章程,如预期的 u22为国家保护和平保存和平。 。 u22当框架时想要谈论从状态a跨越州的事务或事件,他们使用 u22between。 u22当他们想谈论一定程度或事态,通常在某个区域或地区发生使用 u22among。 u22

著录项

  • 作者

    Herbert Hovenkamp;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 1996
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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