اصل رعایت تشریفات قانونی در بازنگری قضایی ایالات متحده آمریکا

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای حقوق عمومی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران

2 دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران

چکیده

چکیده
اصلاحیه چهاردهم قانون اساسی آمریکا، برای دیوان عالی این کشور مقدمه‌ای شد جهت تأسیس اصل رعایت تشریفات قانونی تا دادگاه‌ها از این طریق در راستای حمایت از حق‌ها و آزادی‌های بنیادین افراد، کلیه اقدامات دولتی را مورد بازنگری قضایی قرار دهند و در صورت مشاهده موارد مغایر، اقدام تقنینی یا اجرایی موضوع شکایت را بلااثر نمایند در این مقاله به تبیین سازوکار و چهارچوب‌های اِعمال این اصل در رویه قضایی ایالات متحده آمریکا می‌پردازیم تا با تبیین نحوه تضمین حق‌های شهروندی در نظام حقوقی این کشور، برای تصویب قوانین و رویه­های حقوقی آتی در زمینه تضمین حق‌های ملت مقرر در قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران، گام مؤثری باشد.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Due Process of Law in the United States Judicial Review

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ariyan Petoft 1
  • Mohammadreza Vijeh 2
1 Ph.D. candidate of public law university of Allameh Tabatabaei, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Public Law, faculty of law and political science university of Allameh Tabatabaei, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
14th amendment of the United States constitution, established the “Due Process” clause to create an effective way for protecting fundamental rights and freedoms against all government authorities’ actions through judicial review by courts. Thus, in case of violation, legislative or executive measures subject to complaint will be null and void. This Paper sheds light on the mechanisms and frameworks of applying this principle in the United States judicial review, explaining how the U.S legal system guarantees the citizenship rights; it is an effective step for future legislation and legal practice to guarantee “peoples’ rights” set forth in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • : Due process of law
  • Substantive due process
  • Judicial review
  • The United States
  • Protection of citizens’ rights and liberties

 

منابع

الف. فارسی

بیژن، عباسی(1390)، حقوق اداری، نشر دادگستر

پتفت، آرین و احمد مرکز مالمیری(1393)، مفهوم و قلمرو اصول کلی حقوق اداری امکان و چگونگی استناد به آن در رسیدگی‌های قضایی، مرکز مطبوعات و انتشارات قوه قضاییه

پتفت، آرین و علیرضا جمشیدی (1395)، «حقوق شهروندی در پرتو آئین­های نوین اداری»، فصلنامه اخلاق زیستی، شماره ویژه حقوق شهروندی، سال ششم، شماره 21، 50-23

راسخ، محمد(1389)، نظارت و تعادل در نظام حقوق اساسی، تهران، انتشارات دراک

زارعی محمد حسین، مرکز مالمیری، احمد (1384)، «مفهوم و مبانی نظارت قضایی با تأکید بر نظام حقوقی ایلات متحده آمریکا»، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 42. 151-202

زولر الیزابت(1391)، درآمدی بر حقوق عمومی: مطالعه تطبیقی بنیادهای حقوق عمومی آلمان، فرانسه، انگلستان و آمریکا، ترجمه مجتبی واعظی، تهران، جاودانه.

شوالیه ژاک(1378)، دولت قانونمند، ترجمه حمیدرضا ملک محمدی، تهران، دادگستر.

محمودی، جواد(1390)، حقوق اداری تطبیقی، انتشارات جنگل

مؤتمنی، طباطبایی منوچهر(1387)، حقوق اداری، انتشارات سمت

نوین، پرویز(1386)، حقوق اداری تطبیقی، انتشارات تدریس

واعظی مجتبی(1390)، دادگستری اساسی: مطالعه تطبیقی نظام‌های حقوقی فرانسه و آمریکا با نگاهی به حقوق ایران، تهران، جاودانه.

هامون فرانسیس(1383)، «صیانت از قانون اساسی در فرانسه و ایالات متحده آمریکا»، ترجمه محمد جلالی، حقوق اساسی، ش 2. صص 182-222

هداوند، مهدی(1390)، حقوق اداری تطبیقی، انتشارات سمت، 2 جلدی

 

 

ب. انگلیسی

Adler M.D. (2003), "Constitutional Existence Conditions & Judicial Review", Virginia Law Review, 1105-1202

Authenticated U.S Government Information GPO (1992), 14th Amendment: Rights Guaranteed

Bamforth N., Peter Leyland (2013), Accountability in the Contemporary Constitution, Oxford University Press

Bazan E.B. (2005), Congressional Authority over the federal Courts, Congressional Research Service

Beckett Julia (2010), Public Management and the Rule of Law, M.E. Sharpe

Bickel A. (2011), The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, Yale University Press

Bongiovanni G., Giovanni Sartor, Chiara Valentini(2009), Reasonableness and Law, Springer Science & Business Media

Cane, P. (2009), Administrative Tribunals and Adjudication, Hart publishing,

---------- (2010), "Judicial Review and Merits Review: Comparing Administrative Adjudication by Courts and Tribunals", in Susan Rose-Ackerman and Peter L Lindseth (ed.), Comparative Administrative Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK

Carias B. (1989), Judicial Review in Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press

Calabresi S.G. (2008), “Substantive Due Process After Gonzales V. Carhart”, Michigan Law Review, Vol.106, 1517-1542

Chemerinsky E. (1999), “Substantive Due Process”, Touro Law Review, Vol.15, 1501-1534

Cohen M.R. (2002), Readings in Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy, Beard Books

Congressional Research Services (2008), the Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation

Cox A. (2012), “The Role of Supreme Court: Judicial Activism or Self-Restraint?” Maryland Law Review, Vol.47, 118-138

DeLeo John (2008),Administrative Law, Cengage Learning

De Tocqueville A. (2000), Democracy in America, University of Chicago Press

Edward W. (2000), The Constitution and the New Deal, Harvard University Press

Edin D.E. (2008), Judges and Unjust Laws: Common Law Constitutionalism and the Foundations of Judicial Review, University of Michigan Press

Ely J.H. (1980), Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review, Harvard University Press

Fallon R.H. (2000), “As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third Party Standing”, Harvard University Law Review, 1321-1370

Favoreu L. (1990), Constitutional Review in Europe,L. Henkin

Favoreu L. (2004), Droit Constitutionnel, 7th Edition, Dalloz

Fisher L. (2005), “Judicial Review of the War Power”, Congressional Research Service, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol.35, No.3, 466–495

Floren D. (2001), “Pre-Enforcement Ripeness Doctrine: The Fitness of Hardship”, Oregon Law Review, Vol.80, 1107-1138

Forte D.F. (1998), Natural Law and Contemporary Public Policy, Georgetown University Press

Funk,William (2010) F., Sidney A. Shapiro, Russell L. Weaver, Administrative procedure and practice: problems and cases, West Publishing

Georgetown Law Journal Association(1983), Georgetown Law Journal, Volume 71, Part 2

Gene R.N. (1987), “Ripeness and the Constitution”, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.54, 153-183

Guntner V.V. (1943), Labor in the Struggle for Life, Cited In: The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes: His Speeches, Essays, Letters, and Judicial Opinions, Transaction Publishers

Hamburge P. (2011), “Privileges or Immunities”, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 105, No. 1, 61-147

Hall J.P. (2009), Constitutional Law, Biblio Bazaar

Hall M.I. (2009), “The Partially Prudential Doctrine of Mootness”, The George Washington Law Review, Vol.77, 562-622

Hawley, J. D. (2014) "The Intellectual Origins of (Modem)Substantive Due Process" Texas Law Review, Vol.93, pp.275-350

Henkin L. (1976), “Is There a Political Question Doctrine?”, Yale Law Journal, 597-625

Hutchison M. (2005), Due Process: Document-Based Activities on Civil Rights and Liberties, Social Studies School Service

Isserles M.E. (1988), “Overcoming Over breath: Facial Challenges and the Valid Rule”, America University Law Review, 359-466

Kelsen H. (1988), Theorie Pure du Droit, 2nd Edition, Baconniere

Kendall D.T. (2004), Redefining Federalism: Listening to the States in Shaping our Federalism, Environmental Law Institute

Kommers D.P. (2004), American Constitutional Law: Essays, Cases, and Comparative Notes, Rowman & Littlefield

Knox D. (2011), Motion to Dismiss as Moot, American Bar Association

Lewinson J.L. (1935), “Limiting Judicial Review by Act of Congress”, California Law Review, Vol.23, 591-601

Little L.E. (2007), Federal Courts: Examples & Explanations, Aspen

Longer L. (2002), Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study, Sunny Press

Madison P.A. (2013), Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment's First Section, federalistblog

Mandelker D.R. (2000), “Entitlement to Substantive Due Process: Old versus New Property in Land Use Regulation”, Festschrift, Vol. 3, No.6, 61-97

Martin M. (2010), “Advisory Opinions and the Influence of the Supreme Court Over American Policy Making”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.124, No.8, 2064-2086

Mayer D.N. (2009), “Substantive Due Process Rediscovered: The Rise and Fall of Liberty of Contract”, Mercer Law Review, Vol.60, 563-658

---------------(2010), “The Myth of Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism: Liberty of Contract During the Lochner Era”, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol.36, No.2

Musgrove W.R. (2008), “Substantive Due Process: A History of Liberty in Due Process Clause”, UNIV. OF ST. Thomas Journal OF Law &Public Policy, Vol. II, No. 1,

Monaghan H.P(1989), “Harmless Error and the Valid Rule Requirement”, The Supreme Court Review, 195-211

Nelson W.E. (2013), The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine, Harvard University Press

Pacelle R.L. (2011), Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court, Cambridge University Press

Phillips M.J. (1997), “How Many Times Was Lochner Era Substantive Due Process Effective?”, Mercer Law Review, Vol.48

Phillips M.J. (2001), The Lochner Court, Myth and Reality: Substantive Due Process from the 1890s to the 1930s, Greenwood Publishing Group

Poulson B.W. (1982), “Substantive Due Process and Labor Law”, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol.VI

Pohlman H. L. (1993), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Free Speech and the Living Constitution, NYU Press

Redish, Martin H. and Jennifer Aronoff (2014)"The Real Constitutional Problem with State Judicial Selection: Due Process, Judicial Retention, and the Dangers of Popular Constitutionalism",William & Mary Law Review, Volume 56, Issue 1

Reed L.W. (2008), Great Myths of the Great Depression, Mackinac Center

Rosenkranz N.Q. (2010), “The Subject of the Constitution”, Stanford Law Review, Vol.62, 1209-1292

Rosen J. (2013),” Economic Freedoms and the Constitution”, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol.35, No.1, 13-24

Raskys Mike (2014), “State Constitutional Law—Due Process— The United States Supreme Court. COST v. STATE”, Rutgers Law Journal

Rubin M.B. (2013), “Buchanan v. Warley and the Limits of Substantive Due Process as Antidiscrimination Law”, Texas Law Review, Vol.92, pp.477-516

Samaha J. (2010), Criminal Procedure, Cengage Learning

Sandefur T. (2012), “In Defense of Substantive Due Process or the Promise of Lawful Rule”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol.35, 284-326

Sandefur T. (2010), The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law, Cato Institute

Shlapentokh V., Eric Beasley, (2013) Restricting Freedoms: Limitations on the Individual in Contemporary America, Transaction Publishers

Schneider C. (2000), Law at the End of Life: The Supreme Court and Assisted Suicide, University of Michigan Press

Sullivan, Frank (2013) "Assuring Due Process through Merit Selection of Judges" Indiana Law Review, Vol. 46

Troper M. (2000), La Philosophie du Droit, 1st Edition

Thomas, Curtis (2013) "Substantive Due Process: The Power to Grant Monopolies in the Federalist Marketplace of State Experimentation" the Brigham Young University Law Review, Volume 2013, Issue 2, pp.393-420

Volokh, A. (2014) "The New Private-Regulation Skepticism: Due Process, Non-Delegation, and Antitrust Challenges", Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.931-1007

Waters R.C. (1987), “Judicial Immunity Vs. Due Process When Should a Judge Be Subject to Suit?”, Cato Journal, Vol.7, No.2, 461-474

Weinberg L. (2007), “Dred Scott and the Crisis of 1860, Symposium: 150th Anniversary of the Dred Scott Decision”, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 97

--------------- (2013), "A General Theory of Governance: Due Process and Lawmaking Power", William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.1057-1120

Yarbrough T.E. (1988), Mr. Justice Black and His Critics, Duke University Press.