FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W256255341> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W256255341 startingPage "1613" @default.
• W256255341 abstract "I. Introduction The constitutional right to remains one of most controversial areas of civil liberties. There are procedural objections to way was United States (U.S.) Constitution by liberal activists such as Justice William O. Douglas, who wrote in Griswold v. Connecticut(1) that guarantees in Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees, which create zones of privacy in First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.(2) Others have substantive objections to specific conceptions of that have restricted traditional government powers to regulate individual behavior in areas such as obscenity and indecency, sexual behavior, abortion, drug usage, family law, and right to die.(3) It is feared that privacy, which Justice Brandeis called the most comprehensive of rights,(4) will prove to be a legal concept, not easily defined or limited once it is recognized as a constitutional right.(5) This fear has increased across ideological spectrum in a post-individual era where legalism and rights talk are blamed for a diminished sense of civic responsibility, an impoverished political discourse,(6) and a national disease called hyperlexis.(7) This Article began as a research project designed to describe state constitutional to privacy. However, after reading judicial opinions interpreting state constitutions, project became an argument against some of familiar criticisms of rights talk and judiciary's role in defining, articulating, and developing individual liberties. Examining how judges actually decide cases demonstrates that, contrary to many popular perceptions and some scholarly analyses, judicial reasoning resembles, in important ways, legislative, executive, and administrative decision-making on civil liberties policy. Public law research includes a scholarly tradition that describes courts as unique institutions.(8) For example, in 1977, Donald L. Horowitz published The Courts and Social Policy,(9) an influential book that has become part of a scholarly research tradition describing adjudication as well-designed for dispute resolution but poorly-designed for social policymaking.(10) The institutional argument that social policymaking exposes limits of judicial process is consistent with more recent attitudinal arguments against legalism, which is usually defined as excessive reliance upon and law. However, argument that legal discourse has stunted political discourse about controversial issues is not supported by judicial language, logic, or decisions in cases.(11) Privacy has not proven to be a greedy concept partly because judicial conceptions of fit well within established frameworks for analyzing civil liberties issues. Nevertheless, much of political discourse about and media reporting on cases depict claims as absolutes, thereby contributing to perception that civil liberties claims jeopardize community, society, or majoritarian values.(12) II. The State of Law The conclusions in Part I of this Article are based upon an examination of state court interpretations of in three states -- Florida, Louisiana, and Alabama -- whose constitutions represent three very different types of rights. Florida has an explicit, unqualified, and general right that was adopted in 1980 when Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment declaring that [e]very natural person has right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life.(13) In terms of democratic theory, this clear and strong language is desirable because it minimizes opportunity for judges to read into constitutional provisions that have been approved by voters. Louisiana has an explicit right to privacy, but it is a qualified and specific right. …" @default.
• W256255341 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W256255341 creator A5028812551 @default.
• W256255341 date "1997-08-06" @default.
• W256255341 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W256255341 title "Rights Talk about Privacy in State Courts" @default.
• W256255341 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W256255341 type Work @default.
• W256255341 sameAs 256255341 @default.
• W256255341 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W256255341 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W256255341 hasAuthorship W256255341A5028812551 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C126806153 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C14587133 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C2775923278 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C2777919471 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C2780169623 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W256255341 hasConcept C95691615 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C11413529 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C126806153 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C144024400 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C14587133 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C169437150 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C17744445 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C18650270 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C199539241 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C2775923278 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C2776154427 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C2777919471 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C2780169623 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C41008148 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C48103436 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C94625758 @default.
• W256255341 hasConceptScore W256255341C95691615 @default.
• W256255341 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W256255341 hasLocation W2562553411 @default.
• W256255341 hasOpenAccess W256255341 @default.
• W256255341 hasPrimaryLocation W2562553411 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W1601505542 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W1601901941 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W1605721218 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2241256560 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2259152914 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2265287215 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2272478625 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2318379533 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2342928235 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2554893410 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2803282481 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2892241692 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2896405782 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W2913283829 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W3122026275 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W3122256777 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W3123516749 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W3123535082 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W3125184087 @default.
• W256255341 hasRelatedWork W3209810800 @default.
• W256255341 hasVolume "60" @default.
• W256255341 isParatext "false" @default.
• W256255341 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W256255341 magId "256255341" @default.
• W256255341 workType "article" @default.