文档类型
条形图
发布日期
1-1-1994
抽象性
屠宰院案例同时不显眼和异常它们是无关紧要的,因为问题 -- -- 是否可要求屠夫在中央国家特许设施打包交易 -- -- 早就不再是令人关切的问题了。它们是非同寻常的,因为尽管法院三大法律结论都被驳回,“每个人都”同意法院错误解释特权或豁免条款,14项修正特权或豁免条款在我国宪法体系中没有有意义的位置这一结论继续有效Even those who have a narrow view of the Fourteenth Amendment conclude that beyond due process and equal protection, the Fourteenth Amendment was "meant to establish some substantial rights" and that "[t]hese were the ‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States."' Yet almost all sources agree that Justice Miller's majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, or at least its dicta, "virtually scratched [the Privileges or Immunities Clause] from the constitution." This Article argues that Justice Miller's majority opinion was indeed based on an incorrect reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, and then explores why Justice Miller, as well as the other Justices in the majority and the dissents, reached the conclusions they did.第一部分勾画基础观点,即第十四修正特权或豁免条款旨在保护实体权,主要是民权法案不受国家割舍第二部分审查屠宰院决定,归纳律师提出的论点并分析Miller法官、Field法官、Bradley法官和Swayne法官所写的意见第三部分批评Miller法官的意见第四部分通过审查每位大法官的政治背景,并视可用情况,分析他们对通过该修正案的个人反应,试图解释大法官的立场第五部分用1873-1949年屠宰院意见流行和专业评语测试对大法官意见和背景的分析
出版物标题
Chicago-Kent法评
第一页
627
推荐引用
理查L爱因斯约束自由法:JusticeMiller,第十四修正案和屠宰院案例70 Chicago-Kent法律评论627(1994年)。