| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite(n): 244, Zeilen: 103-121 |
Original: Seite(n): 913, Zeilen: 105-118 |
|
|---|---|---|
[Fn 707] Dazu neben den Sondervoten in Coleman v. Miller der bereits oben im Zusammenhang mit dem Steit um Einzelfragen des Konvents erwähnte G. Rees, Throwing Away the Key: The Unconstitutionality of the Equal Rights Amendment Extension, in: 58 Texas L. Rev. (1980), S. 875 ff., 886 ff.; ders, Comment, Rescinding Ratification of Proposed Constitutional Amendments. A Question for the Court, in: 37 La. L. Rev. (1977), S. 896ff, der eine generelle Befugnis des Supreme Court zum „judicial review“ befürwortet. Im Ergebnis ähnlich, jedoch mit klaren Einschränkungen auf lediglich „formale Fragen“ W. Dellinger, The Legitimacy of Constitutional Change: Rethinking the Amendment Process, in: 97 Harvard L. Rev. (1983), S. 386 ff., 414 ff. Siehe weiterhin L.H. Tribe, A Constitution We Are Amending: In Defense of a Restrained Judicial Role, in: 97 Harvard L. Rev. (1983), S. 433 ff., 435 ff. Eine Vielzahl von Argumenten zu dieser Thematik findet sich auch in den „Hearings“ zur Equal Rights Amendment Extension, Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, 95th Congress, 2d sess. (1978); Equal Rights Amendment Extension, Hearings before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, 95th Congress, 1st/2d sess. (1977 –78). Zudem befassten sich zwei gliedstaatliche Gerichte mit der Problematik, um zu dem Schluß einer zumindest eingeschränkten Justiziabilität zu kommen, Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291 (D.C.N.D. Ill., 1975); Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D.C.D. Idaho, 1981), aufgehoben und „remanded to dismiss“ durch den Supreme Court, 459 U.S. 809 (1982). |
[77] The strongest argument to the effect that constitutional amendment questions are justiciable is Rees, Throwing Away the Key: The Unconstitutionality of the Equal Rights Amendment Extension, 58 Tex. L. Rev. 875, 886-901 (1980), and his student note, Comment, Rescinding Ratification of Proposed Constitutional Amendments — A Question for the Court, 37 La. L. Rev. 896 (1977). Two perspicacious scholars of the Constitution have come to opposite conclusions on the issue. Compare Dellinger, The Legitimacy of Constitutional Change: Rethinking the Amendment Process, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 386, 414-416 (1983) (there is judicial review), with Tribe, A Constitution We Are Amending: In Defense of a Restrained Judicial Role, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 433, 435-436 (1983). Much of the scholarly argument, up to that time, is collected in the ERA-time-extension hearings. Supra, n. 40. The only recent judicial precedents directly on point found justiciability on at least some questions. Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291 (D.C.N.D.III., 1975) (three-judge court); Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D.C.D.Idaho, 1981), vacated and remanded to dismiss, 459 U.S. 809 (1982). |
Fragmentsichter: Nerd_wp (Sichtungsergebnis: Gut) |
4.229
Seiten