FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W193110485> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W193110485 startingPage "1989" @default.
• W193110485 abstract "Recent opinions of the Supreme Court,1 as well as statements by several of the Justices in extra-judicial speeches,2 suggest a willingness to look at foreign sources of as aids in constitutional interpretation. Constitutional scholarship has also taken a comparative turn; numerous scholars now examine non-U.S. constitutional structures practices to see what insight they may provide for U.S. constitutional interpretation constitutionalism. There is nothing terribly new in all of this. Early opinions of the Court leading treatises of the nineteenth century took international comparative far more seriously than courts scholars in the twentieth century. James Madison studied the constitutions of the world in preparing to write the American document. Early U.S. jurists were schooled on the leading international treatises, the lex mercatoria, the of prizes, Roman citizenship law, British constitutionalism. The insularity of this nation's middle years needs more explanation, perhaps, than the turn (back) toward legal systems beyond our borders. This outward-looking approach to U.S. constitutionalism will surely continue, its sources ranging from the mundane (attendance by U.S. judges at foreign conferences) to the useful (growing U.S. interest in human rights jurisprudence in the European Union (EU)). For scholars, the comparative turn represents the most recent attempt to gain a new perspective, to examine assumptions, to challenge the prevailing wisdom-opportunities provided in days past by various critical legal studies, the various law and movements, historical turns. It is difficult to write these opening paragraphs without mentioning globalization somewhere. So let me add it in terms of legal pedagogy. Quite simply, to be responsive responsible, schools need to teach students how to be comfortable in more than one legal system-because so much of modern legal practice crosses borders. Comparative constitutional study has, appropriately, become part of a good liberal arts legal education. Exactly what influence the comparative turn has had on constitutional doctrine remains to be seen. At present, the nods to foreign sources seem little more than make-weights in opinions that have reached conclusions on other grounds. But theorizing has begun on how external constitutional norms can become authoritative elements in U.S. constitutional adjudication.3 And this is but one piece of a broader internationalist agenda that seeks greater influence for transnational norms. The normative case stresses both national interests moral advancement. Once transnational norms become more than points of comparison-once the claim is made that made elsewhere has weight, force, or bindingness in the U.S. legal system-significant issues of constitutionalism come into play. These issues are frequently stated in doctrinal terms: Does delegation to international organizations violate structural constitutional norms? Does Article III require that international adjudications with domestic effect be subject to judicial review by U.S. courts?4 As international regulation grows apace, these will become real constitutional issues for U.S. courts.5 The likely result is far from clear. U.S. participation in the rising tide of transnational lawmaking shows that significant national interests are at stake. Congress the executive branch see value in entering into the kinds of arrangements that will raise new constitutional questions. But, of course, it is precisely this new kind of that may well give the Justices pause. It might be thought that in the field of foreign affairs the Court will be loathe to exercise muscle, but I think a parallel can be drawn here to the Court's recent willingness to limit congressional power deemed to intrude on the states. Keith Whittington has noted that the new federalism cases have invalidated relatively minor legislation that was not supported strongly by either political party nor a powerful political constituency. …" @default.
• W193110485 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W193110485 creator A5073544062 @default.
• W193110485 date "2004-06-01" @default.
• W193110485 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W193110485 title "Thinking outside the Sovereignty Box: Transnational Law and the U.S. Constitution" @default.
• W193110485 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W193110485 type Work @default.
• W193110485 sameAs 193110485 @default.
• W193110485 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W193110485 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W193110485 hasAuthorship W193110485A5073544062 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C149209484 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C186229450 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C2780781376 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C70999106 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W193110485 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C138885662 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C144024400 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C149209484 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C17744445 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C186229450 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C18650270 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C199539241 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C2776154427 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C2778061430 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C2778272461 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C2780781376 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C41895202 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C527412718 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C555826173 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C70999106 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C71043370 @default.
• W193110485 hasConceptScore W193110485C94625758 @default.
• W193110485 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W193110485 hasLocation W1931104851 @default.
• W193110485 hasOpenAccess W193110485 @default.
• W193110485 hasPrimaryLocation W1931104851 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W115222537 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W1484448219 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W1541830738 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W166133280 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W1880360212 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W1998207621 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W2016093233 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W2162160554 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W2168014528 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W2216340784 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W229474093 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W260228260 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W2976928964 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W2992902881 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W3121750254 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W3122560668 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W3122679275 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W3123519588 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W81831844 @default.
• W193110485 hasRelatedWork W3123928866 @default.
• W193110485 hasVolume "82" @default.
• W193110485 isParatext "false" @default.
• W193110485 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W193110485 magId "193110485" @default.
• W193110485 workType "article" @default.