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
1702741900
(86) 参见Jon Elster,Ulysses Unbound:Studies in Rationality,Precommitment,and Constraints,Cambridge University Press,2000。
1702741901
1702741902
(87) 代际对话实际上为每一代的参与者创造了一种超越此时此地的利益驱动的激励结构,借用罗尔斯的比喻,代际对话就好比为每一代人搭起了一种“无知之幕”,由此才得以促进以公共精神为导向的宪法变革。例如参见Adrian Vermeule,“Veil of Ignorance Rules in Constitutional Law,”111 Yale Law Journal399,2001。
1702741903
1702741904
(88) 引自John Hart Ely,Democracy and Distrust:A Theory of Judicial Review,Harvard University Press,1980,p.11。
1702741905
1702741906
(89) 关于“活在当下”论述,可参见Jed Rubenfeld,Freedom and Time:A Theory of Constitutional Self-Government,Yale University Press,2001。
1702741907
1702741908
(90) Adam Samaha,“Dead Hand Arguments and Constitutional Interpretation,”108 Columbia Law Review,606,2008.
1702741909
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.70274186e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]