FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W302017101> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W302017101 startingPage "177" @default.
• W302017101 abstract "I. Despite recent polemics, the use of in constitutional interpretation, as one factor among others, is highly traditional and eminently proper. Some is too important to the place of the United States in the world for our constitutional jurisprudence to ignore; some provides useful functional or normative insights on which constitutional adjudication can draw. As a matter of division of labor, (1) I will concentrate here on the use of international--as opposed to foreign--law in constitutional interpretation. Some criticisms of recent Supreme Court decisions have coupled attacks on these two categories of and some criticisms suggest a lack of awareness that there is any difference between them. In fact, there are important differences between the two categories, and the arguments for their relevance do not entirely coincide. At the same time, the two categories partly overlap. Judge Frank Easterbrook and Professor Steven Calabresi, in their contributions to this symposium, appear to treat these categories as interchangeable for purposes of their arguments about law, and within the limits of their respective methodologies that may be appropriate. (2) From the broader (and I believe more justifiable) perspective taken in this Article, the differences can be significant. The category of international law covers a wide variety of different kinds of norms, such as customary multilateral treaties, and bilateral treaties. It includes treaties to which the United States is a party, treaties that we have chosen not to ratify, and treaties that we are not eligible to ratify. Some is part of the basic legal architecture of the world we live in. Some is particularistic and ephemeral. These distinctions are relevant to how various norms of should be used in constitutional interpretation, but their existence should not disqualify the entire category from consideration. International as such is not ephemeral and cannot be dismissed as a pack of moods, fads or fashions. (3) The category of law could be understood principally as referring to the domestic legal systems of foreign states, including their national constitutions, statutes, and other domestic norms. (4) Sometimes discussions focus even more narrowly on foreign constitutional but the content of national constitutions varies greatly, and some systems give statutory answers to questions that other systems treat as constitutional. Foreign law can also be understood more broadly as further including the obligations of a foreign state, and especially those that do not bind the United States, such as regional treaties on other continents, bilateral treaties among foreign states, and global multilateral treaties that the United States has not ratified. Thus, some law may also be international law. In recent cases that have excited controversy, such as Atkins v. Virginia, (5) Lawrence v. Texas, (6) and Roper v. Simmons, (7) the Supreme Court has primarily cited to foreign domestic and to binding on other countries. The sources included regional human rights treaties and jurisprudence thereunder, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the United States has not ratified. The Court in Roper also noted the prohibition on the juvenile death penalty in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States did ratify in 1992, but with a unique reservation excluding that particular provision. (8) Treaties ratified by the United States without pertinent reservation, on the other hand, are not foreign at all. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution declares them to be supreme of the land. (9) Treaties may be viewed as having a foreign aspect, in that the United States cannot adopt them unilaterally, and cannot modify them without the consent of treaty partners. …" @default.
• W302017101 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W302017101 creator A5074497357 @default.
• W302017101 date "2006-09-22" @default.
• W302017101 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W302017101 title "International Law as a Resource in Constitutional Interpretation" @default.
• W302017101 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W302017101 type Work @default.
• W302017101 sameAs 302017101 @default.
• W302017101 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W302017101 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W302017101 hasAuthorship W302017101A5074497357 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C136197465 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C158154518 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C185436325 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C204434341 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C2779921323 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C44725695 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C55447825 @default.
• W302017101 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C136197465 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C138885662 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C144024400 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C154945302 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C158154518 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C17744445 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C185436325 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C18650270 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C190253527 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C199539241 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C204434341 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C2776154427 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C2778272461 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C2779921323 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C41008148 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C41895202 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C44725695 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C527412718 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C55447825 @default.
• W302017101 hasConceptScore W302017101C71043370 @default.
• W302017101 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W302017101 hasLocation W3020171011 @default.
• W302017101 hasOpenAccess W302017101 @default.
• W302017101 hasPrimaryLocation W3020171011 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W103408552 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W1107321737 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W1511315459 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W155659131 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W1741995923 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2014642179 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2111052209 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2146171544 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2258831148 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2266968785 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2296558224 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2319965396 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2323245236 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2340962598 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2577963762 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W2767575106 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W3121328288 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W3122458327 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W336322089 @default.
• W302017101 hasRelatedWork W340672531 @default.
• W302017101 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W302017101 isParatext "false" @default.
• W302017101 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W302017101 magId "302017101" @default.
• W302017101 workType "article" @default.