وبلاگ خانه تبدیل شباهنگ مرکز تخصصی تبدیل صدا و تصویر
Several explanations have been put forward for this postponement. One of the reasons is the so-called academic “turning point” in originalism: the shift from an approach that appeals to citizens as a whole to an approach developed by academics with their peers and judges as the main audience. As Thomas Colby pointed out in “The Sacrifice of The New Originalism,” Bork and Rehnquist`s approach to originalism articulated in the 1970s and 80s has undergone changes over the past decade that have increased their intellectual appeal. Some of these changes have improved originalist methods; Perhaps the most widespread change was the shift from the search for the “original intent” of the founders to the “original public meaning” of the Constitution. But, according to Colby, “[i]n particularly or not,” the submission of originalism to the Academy made it a more abstract theory, which in turn “effectively sacrificed [its] promise of judicial coercion.” Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for restraint This criticism is indeed friendly, since no other interpreter of originalism than Judge Scalia did – in an article with a title that says it all: “Originalism: The Lesser Evil.” Judges have the task of deciding individual cases within the framework of the protocol before them and of having only their trainees as assistants. As a result, they do not have the time and resources to determine, in each case before them, the original meaning of a constitutional provision that could be obscured by precedents, unclear historical documents or serious scientific debate. In most cases, the judge retained by the court will decide a case in such a way that the law established by Congress is upheld. Lawyers who show judicial restraint show solemn respect for the separation of government issues. Strict constructionism is a type of legal philosophy advocated by judicially restricted judges. In the Perez case, Justice Alito usefully distinguished the challenges posed by the administrative state between “issues that can be dealt with by the Supreme Court” and issues that must be dealt with by Congress – and further between issues that require a review of the law and issues that simply require the support of traditional judicial instruments. This has shown once again the benefits of judicial restraint for the rule of law.
As a guarantor of self-government, legal restraint, which is used alongside originalism, ensures that people have the freedom to retain self-government and regain it if necessary. The Conservatives would benefit from maintaining the link between originalism and legal restraint as they continue to face challenges to self-government. Originalism faces additional complications in practice. In the absence of a clear strategic or business advantage, clients are unlikely to pay the high billable rates levied by leading law firms to explore and apply the original meaning of a particular constitutional provision – especially if it requires resolving disputes over the original meaning that have plagued academics and courts for decades, even centuries. Of course, the challenges that arise from unbridled originalism are not only practical; they are also doctrinal. While originalism sometimes provides clear answers to legal questions, this is not always the case. For example, it may provide substantial evidence of divergent conclusions. Professors Michael McConnell and Philip Hamburger have demonstrated this in their efforts to determine whether the original meaning of the free exercise clause allows for religion-based exceptions to neutral laws of general application. Nor does originalism provide a definitive answer to the historical sources that should be the most convincing — as evidenced by the disagreement between Justices Scalia and Thomas in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, which concerns the scope of the original First Amendment`s protection for anonymous political speech. At this point in American history, with conservative successes in appointing judges and with some members of the political left abandoning self-government, one can understand the temptation to see the judiciary as a better steward of the foundation than the people. But the first right-wing conservatives knew better.
Their wisdom is confirmed by their understanding of the virtues of judicial restraint. Today`s conservatives and originalists would be well advised to remember these virtues. One of the difficulties with this argument – which is itself a good reflection of the common libertarian objection to judicial restraint that informs originalism – is that the other conservative judges of the Court disagreed with the Chief Justice precisely because of their duty of judicial restraint. They criticized the chief justice`s opinion for the court, which reshaped the bill`s individual mandate as a tax because (as Barnett also put it) it “escaped what Congress passed”: in other words, the very kind of judicial legislation that has long avoided deference. The emphasis on legal restraint by the modern right-wing conservative movement has come, as Bork put it in “Neutral Principles and Certain First Amendment Issues,” the “persistent troubling.” Lack of theory. The kind of theory Bork was referring to was not just a theory of individual freedom. The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, a major impetus for the criticisms Bork and other right-wing conservatives have raised against modern constitutional law, has become known for using different notions of individual liberty to create new constitutional guarantees, override previous precedents, and otherwise restrict democratic choice. In other words, constitutional law did not have time to disrupt existing law in order to realize certain visions of individual freedom. What was missing, the early right-wing conservatives acknowledged, was, in Bork`s words, a theory “derived from the constitution, from the respective spheres of the freedom of the majority and the minority.” The conservative search for “neutral principles” was an attempt to see how the judiciary, when examining the constitutionality of democratic decisions, could harmonize the constitutional protection of two different forms of freedom: individual freedom and freedom to legislate. As a guarantor of the freedom to legislate, judicial restraint is more than a criticism of “legal activism” or “judicial legislation.” This is the conclusion of a deep understanding of human nature and the nature of law. The writings of Yale law professor Alexander Bickel, who informed Judge Bork of the articulation of judicial restraint, show that the freedom to make laws is what defines an autonomous people. Real communities are not supported solely by ideological commitments to abstract legal theories. Adherence to a particular notion of individual freedom depends not only on philosophical principles, but also on what Joseph Schumpeter called the “extra-rational” bonds of family, neighborhood, religious associations, and interpersonal ties that build loyalty to a nation and its ideals.
Individual freedom therefore depends on the freedom of a people to create a community based on the rule of law that reflects its values. Judicial restraint has a long history in U.S. legal theory and jurisprudence. U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Fletcher v. Peck (1810) states that judges should remove laws only if they consider “a clear and strong belief” of unconstitutionality. Early researchers also supported the idea; A notable example is Harvard law professor James Bradley Thayer (1831-1902), who noted that a legislature could vote against a law because it considered it unconstitutional, but still, when he became a judge, he duly voted to maintain it for reasons of restraint. As early right-wing conservatives such as Justice Robert Bork and Chief Justice William Rehnquist understood, originalism without judicial restraint is not originalism at all. The application of the original meaning of the Constitutional`s power limits protects individual freedom, but these limits do not create an autonomous community or provide answers to any challenge facing self-government.
.
