Judicial review in the United States
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States an entity of type: Thing
美國司法審查權是指美國司法機構有能力對法律內容實施司法覆核，並決定是否與現行的法規、條約或規矩相抵觸，乃至於違反現行美國憲法和美國州憲法的條文規定。儘管美國憲法沒有明確界定司法審查的權力，然而在參考憲法結構、相關規定以及歷史發展等因素後，使得美國司法審查權成為一個實質權威。
rdf:langString
In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.
rdf:langString
En los Estados Unidos, la revisión judicial es la capacidad de un tribunal para examinar y decidir si una ley, tratado o reglamento administrativo contradice o viola las disposiciones de la ley vigente, una Constitución Estatal o, por último la Constitución de los Estados Unidos. Si bien la Constitución de los Estados Unidos no define explícitamente un poder de revisión judicial, la autoridad para la revisión judicial en los Estados Unidos se ha deducido de la estructura, las disposiciones y la historia de la Constitución.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Revisión judicial en los Estados Unidos
rdf:langString
Judicial review in the United States
rdf:langString
美國司法審查權
xsd:integer
4861356
xsd:integer
1120974490
rdf:langString
right
rdf:langString
If the whole legislature, an event to be deprecated, should attempt to overleap the bounds, prescribed to them by the people, I, in administering the public justice of the country, will meet the united powers, at my seat in this tribunal; and, pointing to the constitution, will say, to them, here is the limit of your authority; and, hither, shall you go, but no further.
rdf:langString
But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of particular citizens' private rights, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of.
rdf:langString
—Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78
rdf:langString
—George Wythe in Commonwealth v. Caton
<perCent>
30.0
rdf:langString
En los Estados Unidos, la revisión judicial es la capacidad de un tribunal para examinar y decidir si una ley, tratado o reglamento administrativo contradice o viola las disposiciones de la ley vigente, una Constitución Estatal o, por último la Constitución de los Estados Unidos. Si bien la Constitución de los Estados Unidos no define explícitamente un poder de revisión judicial, la autoridad para la revisión judicial en los Estados Unidos se ha deducido de la estructura, las disposiciones y la historia de la Constitución. Dos decisiones históricas de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos sirvieron para confirmar la autoridad constitucional inferida para la revisión judicial en los Estados Unidos: en 1796, Hylton contra Estados Unidos fue el primer caso decidido por la Corte Suprema que implica un desafío directo a la constitucionalidad de una ley del Congreso, la Ley de transporte de 1794 que impuso un "impuesto de transporte". El Tribunal se involucró en el proceso de revisión judicial al examinar el reclamo del demandante de que el impuesto de transporte era inconstitucional. Después de la revisión, la Corte Suprema decidió que la Ley de Transporte era constitucional. En 1803, Marbury contra Madison fue el primer caso de la Corte Suprema donde la Corte afirmó su autoridad para la revisión judicial para anular una ley por inconstitucional. Al final de su opinión en esta decisión, el presidente de la Corte Suprema, John Marshall, sostuvo que la responsabilidad del Corte Suprema de revocar la legislación inconstitucional era una consecuencia necesaria de su juramento de cargo para defender la Constitución como se indica en el Artículo Sexto de la Constitución. Desde el año 2014, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos ha declarado inconstitucionales 176 leyes del Congreso de los Estados Unidos. En el período 1960-2019, la Corte Suprema declaró inconstitucionales total o parcialmente 483 leyes.
rdf:langString
In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution. Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States. In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax". The Court performed judicial review of the plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was constitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision, Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution. As of 2014, the United States Supreme Court has held 176 Acts of the U.S. Congress unconstitutional. In the period 1960–2019, the Supreme Court has held 483 laws unconstitutional in whole or in part.
rdf:langString
美國司法審查權是指美國司法機構有能力對法律內容實施司法覆核，並決定是否與現行的法規、條約或規矩相抵觸，乃至於違反現行美國憲法和美國州憲法的條文規定。儘管美國憲法沒有明確界定司法審查的權力，然而在參考憲法結構、相關規定以及歷史發展等因素後，使得美國司法審查權成為一個實質權威。
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
74228
