打字猴:1.70274185e+09
1702741850 (61) Lawrence v. Texas,539 U.S. 558(2003).
1702741851
1702741852 (62) 这段判词写得尤其精彩。至少在我看来,自由派的布雷耶往往只会讲一些有关民主、法治或自由的政治正确的道理,当然不可否认,布雷耶的学者生涯要比斯卡利亚更成功。关于布雷耶论述的一个批判,可参见田雷《你为什么可以不读布雷耶?》,《书城》2012年第10期。
1702741853
1702741854 (63) John Hart Ely,“The Wages of Crying Wolf:A Comment on Roe v.Wade,”82 Yale Law Journal920,(1973).
1702741855
1702741856 (64) Ferguson v. Skrupa,372 U.S. 726,(1963).
1702741857
1702741858 (65) Ronald Dworkin,Freedom’s Law:The Moral Reading of the American Constitution,Harvard University Press,1996.
1702741859
1702741860 (66) Ronald Dworkin,Taking Rights Seriously,Harvard University Press,1977,p.149.
1702741861
1702741862 (67) Bruce Ackerman,“Rooted Cosmopolitanism,”104 Ethics516,(1994).
1702741863
1702741864 (68) 这是自由派宪法理论的一个致命缺陷。正如富穆勒在评点巴尔金的著作《宪法救赎》时所言,一种皈依过程“可能来自遇到一位政治先知,但不可能来自巴尔金所主要提供的那种理性的学术论证。先知首先通过克里斯玛型的行为而非言词来改造他们的目标;当他们运用言词时,他们提供寓言和故事,而不是像巴尔金所做的那样,对约翰·罗尔斯和弗兰克·迈克尔曼进行注释”。参见Adrian Vermeule,“Ideals and Idols,”The New Republic,June,2011。
1702741865
1702741866 (69) John Hart Ely,Democracy and Distrust:A Theory of Judicial Review,Harvard University Press,1980,p.48.
1702741867
1702741868 (70) John Hart Ely,Democracy and Distrust:A Theory of Judicial Review,Harvard University Press,1980,p.50.
1702741869
1702741870 (71) John Hart Ely,Democracy and Distrust:A Theory of Judicial Review,Harvard University Press,1980,p.59.
1702741871
1702741872 (72) Alexander Bickel,The Least Dangerous Branch:The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics,second edition,Yale University Press,1986,p.68.
1702741873
1702741874 (73) 引自John Hart Ely,Democracy and Distrust:A Theory of Judicial Review,Harvard University Press,1980,p.71-72。
1702741875
1702741876 (74) 伊莱原文是“No answer is what the wrong question begets”,参见John Hart Ely,Demcracy and Distrust:A Theory of Judicial Review,Harvard Ucivercity Press,1980,P.72。
1702741877
1702741878 (75) Henry Monaghan,“Our Perfect Constitution,”56 NYU Law Review353,(1981).
1702741879
1702741880 (76) 桑斯坦在书中区别了四种宪法解释立场,分别为“基础主义者”、“最小主义者”、“完美主义者”和“多数主义者”,参见Cass Sunstein,Radicals in Robes:Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America,Basic Books,2005。
1702741881
1702741882 (77) Prigg v. Pennsylvania,41 U.S. 536,(1842).
1702741883
1702741884 (78) [美]约瑟夫·斯托里:《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海:上海三联书店,2006年。
1702741885
1702741886 (79) 如果确实如此的话,斯托里真是用心良苦。但国会在1850年通过了一个更具压迫性的《逃奴法案》,授权联邦捕奴委员来进行逃奴身份的认定,根据新法案,如果确认为逃奴,则委员可以获得10美元的报酬,反之只有5美元,根据这种偏袒规则,捕奴者在90%的案例中都得到胜利。参见Akhil Amar,America’s Constitution:A Biography,Random House,2005,p.263。
1702741887
1702741888 (80) 正文对普利格案的讲述,材料基本来自Paul Brest,et al.,Processes of Constitutional Decision Making:Cases and Materials,Aspen Law & Business,2006,pp.217-226。
1702741889
1702741890 (81) 关于林肯与美国宪法,一个比较好的入门读本可参见Daniel Farber,Lincoln’s Constitution,University of Chicago Press,2003。
1702741891
1702741892 (82) Robert Cover,Justice Accused:Antislavery and the Judicial Process,Yale University Press,1975.
1702741893
1702741894 (83) 在政治理论中,主导的范式也是罗尔斯为代表的完美论,而阿玛蒂亚·森在其新著内提供了一种有关不正义的比较框架,可参见Amartya Sen,The Idea of Justice,Harvard University Press,2009。
1702741895
1702741896 (84) Mark Graber,Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil,Cambridge University Press,2006,p.2,p.3,p.5-6.
1702741897
1702741898 (85) Sanford Levinson,Constitutional Faith,Princeton University Press,1988;Jack Balkin,Constitutional Redemption:Political Faith in an Unjust World,Harvard University Press,2011.
1702741899
[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70274185e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]