FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W158513338> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W158513338 startingPage "73" @default.
• W158513338 abstract "I. Introduction If ever one man made Article III justiciability doctrines look good, it was Michael Newdow. Everyone hated his case.1 Conservatives hated the Ninth Circuit's decision in Newdow v. United States Congress2 that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment bars schoolteachers from leading students in the Pledge of Allegiance.3 Liberals did not like the case either. On the one hand, they shuddered at the thought that the Supreme Court might affirm, thereby handing the Republicans a magnificent campaign issue just months before the 2004 presidential election.4 On the other hand, a reversal would take one more chip out of the wall of separation between church and state.5 A great sigh of relief greeted the Supreme Court's actual decision-Newdow lacked standing to sue.6 Traditional opponents of constraints on justiciability suddenly recognized their virtues. The liberal Washington Post, while conceding that dismissing a case on standing grounds always has the feel of a cop-out, opined that standing doctrine serves a vital function in the U.S. judicial system, particularly in constitutional challenges to laws and government policies.7 The paper said that [i]nsisting that the courts refrain from considering such matters unless someone with a clear stake in them objects is one of the central checks against overly broad judicial power.8 This Article examines these assertions. Do standing doctrine and justiciability constraints more generally really serve a vital function in the U.S. judicial system? Are they among the central checks against overly broad judicial power? In fact, this Article suggests, justiciability doctrines-particularly standing doctrine-pose a riddle. Most constitutional constraints on the power of government have a readily discernible purpose. It is difficult, however, to state the purpose of many justiciability constraints; certainly there is not general agreement on their purposes. In many cases, justiciability rules do no more than act as an apparently pointless constraint on courts. They throw a few grains of sand into the workings of the judicial branch but do not prevent it from grinding out a judgment. This Article suggests that the apparent purposelessness of justiciability doctrines, as they exist today, indicates that the doctrines are fundamentally misconceived. The courts should not interpret the sparse text of Article III of the Constitution as imposing purposeless constraints on judicial power. Rather, the courts should discern such purposes as justiciability doctrines can properly serve and reconceive them in light of those purposes. Part II of this Article poses the riddle of justiciability. This Part observes that most constitutional provisions serve a reasonably discernible purpose. The justiciability provisions, however, are not so easily pigeonholed. Certainly there is not general agreement as to their purpose, as there is with regard to many constitutional provisions.9 Therefore, this Part suggests, it is essential to determine whether the justiciability constraints serve any plausible purpose. Part III therefore conducts a detailed inquiry into the purposes of justiciability doctrines. This Part reviews the numerous suggestions that courts and scholars have proposed for the purposes underlying the justiciability doctrines and argues that most of them are implausible. Part III rejects suggestions that justiciability doctrines serve to improve the performance of courts by giving litigants a stake in the outcome of cases, to protect the autonomy of groups affected by judicial rulings,11 to restrain courts and preserve the prerogatives of the other branches of government,12 or to grant courts discretion to avoid socially difficult rulings.13 It also rejects the possibility that the purpose of justiciability doctrines is irrelevant because courts must limit themselves to cases the Framers would have intended them to hear, regardless of whether doing so would serve any purpose. …" @default.
• W158513338 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W158513338 creator A5051274244 @default.
• W158513338 date "2007-11-01" @default.
• W158513338 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W158513338 title "A Theory of Justiciability" @default.
• W158513338 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W158513338 type Work @default.
• W158513338 sameAs 158513338 @default.
• W158513338 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W158513338 countsByYear W1585133382013 @default.
• W158513338 countsByYear W1585133382014 @default.
• W158513338 countsByYear W1585133382016 @default.
• W158513338 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W158513338 hasAuthorship W158513338A5051274244 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C126053111 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C13010478 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C24890656 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C2776244770 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C2779518780 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C48764862 @default.
• W158513338 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C121332964 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C126053111 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C13010478 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C17744445 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C199539241 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C24890656 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C2776154427 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C2776211767 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C2776244770 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C2776949292 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C2778272461 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C2779518780 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C48764862 @default.
• W158513338 hasConceptScore W158513338C94625758 @default.
• W158513338 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W158513338 hasLocation W1585133381 @default.
• W158513338 hasOpenAccess W158513338 @default.
• W158513338 hasPrimaryLocation W1585133381 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W108046289 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W150105747 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W1528740383 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W1534401165 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W1545766077 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W1552268399 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W1590684528 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W1607214728 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W1885400129 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W1953784351 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W2132362227 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W2271943185 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W23167948 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W254750469 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W306953291 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W3121548273 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W3122369197 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W2142588487 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W2167748097 @default.
• W158513338 hasRelatedWork W3123445936 @default.
• W158513338 hasVolume "86" @default.
• W158513338 isParatext "false" @default.
• W158513338 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W158513338 magId "158513338" @default.
• W158513338 workType "article" @default.