FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1513772070> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1513772070 endingPage "506" @default.
• W1513772070 startingPage "481" @default.
• W1513772070 abstract "INTRODUCTION Following the just because it is the seems surprisingly unpopular in the United States Or maybe it is not just these days. And perhaps this should not be surprising. For some time now, political figures, public officials, and legions of commentators have treated the law--formal sanctions aside--as something to be followed when it produces results perceived as desirable on first-order policy or political grounds, but as something to be disregarded or slighted when what the demands differs from the course of action that might otherwise have been pursued for law-independent reasons. Quite often, it appears, officials and citizens alike condemn the unlawful character of policies they oppose on substantive grounds, but ignore any illegalities in the policies they favor. Examples of this phenomenon are ubiquitous. The Bush administration seemingly treated the as an annoying yet ultimately surmountable obstacle when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1) interfered with what the administration believed was the valuable or even necessary warrantless domestic surveillance of American citizens, (2) but much the same attitude toward the was embodied in the decisions by the mayors of New Paltz, New York, and San Francisco, California, to marry same-sex couples in violation of the prevailing in those states. (3) President Bush's decision to invade Iraq was inconsistent with international law, (4) but little more or less so than President Clinton's decision to authorize military action in Kosovo. (5) And numerous other instances of what we might call selective pervade public and political life. (6) Indeed, the debate over the appropriateness of referring to people who have entered the United States in violation of existing as illegal immigrants, rather than as undocumented workers, provides a nice example of the widespread tendency for people to stress any illegality in the policies they disfavor while striving to downplay it with respect to the policies they support. (7) As the examples in the previous paragraph were designed to demonstrate, avoidance of the in the service of what are perceived to be sound political, policy, or moral goals appears at first glance to have little political valence. Of course, substantive--or first-order--political, policy, and moral goals assuredly do vary with time, place, political party, and presidential administration, but the willingness or unwillingness to subjugate the to those law-independent goals seems at times to be politically, temporally, and geographically indiscriminate. (8) It is thus a large and important question whether legality as such--the fact of just because it is the law, and not because of the substantive content of the law--has any political incidence. Is respect for the because it is the more the province of some political orientations or parties than of others? In this Article, I propose to examine this question, albeit more anecdotally than systematically. But the anecdotes and the available data span a wide variety of further questions: Do Congress or the executive branch consider themselves bound by Supreme Court or lower court judicial opinions with which they disagree? Do legislative bodies follow the rules they have set forth for their own procedures? Do federal, state, and local officials follow the when they need not worry about first-order public opinion or formal legal sanctions? Much of popular rule of law rhetoric appears to assume that the both is and should be a significant constraint on the behavior of nonjudicial public officials and policy-relevant public figures. (9) But a closer look at the evidence may suggest--albeit tentatively--that the willingness to disregard inconvenient is a common phenomenon, and that it exists across the political spectrum. To the extent that this is so, it may indicate that acquiescence to the more broadly is similarly politically indiscriminate, such that for all of the substantive changes that political or electoral transformations may produce, changes in the attitude about the qua is rarely among them, and has not been among them in the most recent American political transformations. …" @default.
• W1513772070 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1513772070 creator A5055295501 @default.
• W1513772070 date "2011-11-01" @default.
• W1513772070 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1513772070 title "Is Legality Political" @default.
• W1513772070 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W1513772070 type Work @default.
• W1513772070 sameAs 1513772070 @default.
• W1513772070 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1513772070 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1513772070 hasAuthorship W1513772070A5055295501 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C2778069335 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C2778120072 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C2780765947 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C42027317 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C46295352 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C121332964 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C124952713 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C142362112 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C144024400 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C17744445 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C190253527 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C199539241 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C2776050585 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C2778069335 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C2778120072 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C2780765947 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C2780791683 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C42027317 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C46295352 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C62520636 @default.
• W1513772070 hasConceptScore W1513772070C94625758 @default.
• W1513772070 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1513772070 hasLocation W15137720701 @default.
• W1513772070 hasOpenAccess W1513772070 @default.
• W1513772070 hasPrimaryLocation W15137720701 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W1935777987 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W2084845946 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W2126077376 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W2137063751 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W2138056455 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W220291501 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W2211414201 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W224101162 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W2331145932 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W243702997 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W2477614917 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W2502398123 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W265194008 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W2979610606 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W3121269504 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W3122542941 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W3123530466 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W3123969324 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W3160071031 @default.
• W1513772070 hasRelatedWork W1665457026 @default.
• W1513772070 hasVolume "53" @default.
• W1513772070 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1513772070 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1513772070 magId "1513772070" @default.
• W1513772070 workType "article" @default.