skip to main content
Idioma:

UN-INCORPORATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS: THE TENSION BETWEEN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE FEDERALISM CONCERNS THAT UNDERLIE MODERN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REFORMS

MARCEAU, JUSTIN F.

The journal of criminal law & criminology, 2008-07, Vol.98 (4), p.1231-1304 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Chicago: Northwestern University School of Law

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    UN-INCORPORATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS: THE TENSION BETWEEN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE FEDERALISM CONCERNS THAT UNDERLIE MODERN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REFORMS
  • Autor: MARCEAU, JUSTIN F.
  • Assuntos: Bill of Rights ; Constitutional Amendments ; Constitutional law ; Constitutions ; Counterterrorism ; Courts ; CRIMINAL LAW ; Criminal procedure ; Criminal procedures ; Criminology ; Defendants ; Due process of law ; Equal protection ; Equality before the law ; Federal court decisions ; Federal courts ; Federalism ; Fourteenth Amendment ; Fourth Amendment ; Government regulation ; Habeas corpus ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Legal Procedure ; Legislation ; Prisoners ; Reform ; Rights ; Social control ; State courts ; Statutes ; Supreme Court decisions ; Writ of certiorari
  • É parte de: The journal of criminal law & criminology, 2008-07, Vol.98 (4), p.1231-1304
  • Notas: ObjectType-Article-2
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-1
    content type line 23
    ObjectType-Article-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
  • Descrição: This Article addresses the relationship between § 2254 of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a substantial body of literature that either laments or celebrates the rigid limitations on relief imposed on state prisoners attempting to vindicate their federal constitutional rights in federal court. In a series of cases beginning with Williams v. Taylor, the Court has left little doubt that patently incorrect interpretations of the United States Constitution do not necessarily warrant relief under the applicable provision of the habeas corpus statute, § 2254. The question remains, however, whether such limitations on the ability of federal courts to enforce the Federal Constitution represents a constitutional problem. This Article is the first attempt by a commentator to reconcile § 2254 with the Fourteenth Amendment, ultimately concluding that § 2254, as currently applied, is inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine. The hallmark of incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, or more precisely, selective incorporation, is the promise that constitutional rights must apply with the same force and breadth in each of the fifty states, a promise that is impossible to realize under the strictures of § 2254. Because § 2254 impedes the ability of federal courts to apply the Federal Constitution to constitutional claims—e.g., the Sixth Amendment right to counsel—there appear to be serious Fourteenth Amendment concerns that have previously gone unexplored. Because of the limitations on relief for incorrect applications of the Constitution imposed by § 2254, and in view of the nature of certain of the rights announced in the Bill of Rights, this Article posits that the constitutional criminal procedure rights have been sub silentio un-incorporated.
  • Editor: Chicago: Northwestern University School of Law
  • Idioma: Inglês
Voltar para lista de resultados

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.