JOŠ JEDAN POGLED NA AMERIČKI KONSTITUCIONALIZAM I FENOMEN ‘WE THE PEOPLE’
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5937/spz63-23850Ključne reči:
američki konstitucionalizam, ustavni istoricizam, tumačenje ustava, sudsko stvaranje prava, ‘We the People’ fenomenApstrakt
Predmet ovog članka jeste analiza američkog konstitucionalizma, a u svetlosti istorijskog argumenta u ustavnoj interpretaciji i fenomena legitimizacije američkog Ustava posredstvom čuvene sintagme ‘We the People’ zabeležene u njegovoj preambuli. Članak tretira osobenosti istorijske teorije tumačenja ustava, imajući aspiraciju da čitaocu približi ovu školu mišljenja, pokuša da objasni njene pretpostavke i varijetete, sve braneći njene zaključke. Kako istoricizam u američkoj pravnoj književnosti odskora iznova pobuđuje pažnju američke doktrine, u samo središte debate nužno stavlja ne samo raspravu o adekvatnom metodu ustavne interpretacije, već i pitanje adekvatnosti i legitimiteta najdragocenije američke pravne ustanove – ustanove kontrole ustavnosti (judicial review). Pristalice istoricizma, naime, insistiraju na iznalaženju značenja i smisla ustava u samom tekstu ustava i njegovim izvorima, tzv. “originalnoj nameri“ američkih očeva osnivača. Time zapravo podižu pravno-teorijski i politički ulog svake ustavne debate u SAD, a izazivajući dominirajuću američku misao o superiornosti suda - jedinom autoritetu vlasnom da tumačenjem fundamentalnih principa ustava otklanja slabosti i tenzije demokratskog političkog procesa.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
Reference
Ackerman, B. 2019. Revolutionary Constitutions: Charismatic Leadership and the Rule of Law. Belknap Press, Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674238831
Aharon, B. 2002. Foreword: a Judge on Judging: The Role of the Supreme Court in a Democracy. Harvard Law Review, Faculty Scholarship Series, 116(16), pp. 19-162.
Balkin, J. 1997. Agreements with Hell and Other Objects of Our Faith. Fordham Law Review, 65, pp. 1703-1738.
Berger, R. 1997. Reflections on Constitutional Interpretation. BYU Law Review, 3, pp. 517-536.
Bobbitt, P. 1991. Constitutional Interpretation. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing.
Bork, R. 1984. Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute Press.
Bork, R. 1990. The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. New York.
Breyer, S. 2010. Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View. New York, Vintage.
Brown, K. 2013. "We The People", Constitutional Accountability, and Outsourcing Government- Indiana Law Journal, 88(4), pp.1347-1403.
Brown, R. 1993. Tradition and Insight. Yale Law Journal, 103, pp. 177-222. https://doi.org/10.2307/797079
Cardozo, B. 1921. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Cicero, De Offices.
Gordon, R. 1997. Foreword: On the critical Use of History: The Arrival of Critical Historicism. Stanford Law Revue, 49(5), pp.1023-1029.
Greenawalt, K. 1975. Discretion and Judicial Decision: The Elusive Quest for the Fetters that Bind Judges, Columbia Law Review, 75(2), pp. 359-399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121660
Hamilton, A., Madison J., & Jay J. 2001. The Federalist (The Gideon edition). George W. Carey & James McClellan (eds). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Kahn, P. 1999. The Cultural Study of Law: Reconstructing Legal Scholarship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. xiv-432.
MacKinnon, C. 1991, Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law, Yale Law Journal, Vol.100, No.5, Centennial Issue, 1281, pp.1281-1328. https://doi.org/10.2307/796693
Meese, E. 1986, Speech to the American Bar Association, Washington D.C. (held on July 9, 1985), in The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution 9 (Federal Society ed.).
Michelman, F. 1998, Brennan and Democracy: The 1996-1997 Brennan Center Symposium Lecture, California Law Review, No. 86, pp. 399-529. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481113
Nelson, W. 1987, History and Neutrality in Constitutional Adjudication. Virginia Law Review, Vol.72, p. 1246. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073091
Patenam, C. 1998. The Sexual Contract. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Powell, H.J. 1985. The Original Understanding of Original Intent. Harvard Law Review, 98(5), pp. 885-948. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340880
Rakove, J. 1996. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, New York, Alfred A. Knopf ed., 1996.
Scalia, A. 1989, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 57, pp. 849-865.
Sunstein, C. 1995, Five Thesis of Originalism, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol.19, pp. 311-315.
Williams, R. 2010, The One and Only Substantive Due Process Clause, Yale Law Journal, Vol.120, Issue 3, pp. 408-516.
Wooten, H. 2008. Speech: Living in the Law. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 32(1), pp. 198-201.
Williams R. 2012, Substantive Due Process in Historical Context, Cato Unbound, A Journal of debate. Available at: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/02/10/ryan-williams/substantive-due-process-historical-context, last visited 28 October 2019.
Madison, J. 1787. Madison's Notes of Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, in: John C. Payne's Copy of James Madison's Original Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress). Available at: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mjm.28_0270_1617/, last visited 28 October 2019.
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry v. United States (295 U.S. 495 (1935)).
James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 549 (1991), Scalia, L., concurring
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S.45 (1905)
Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803))
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17. U.S. 316, 407 (1819)
S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 221 (1917), Holmes, J., dissenting
United States v. Lopez (514. U.S. 549 (1995)
United States v. Morrison (529 U.S. 598 (2000).
