翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Fullerton Union High School
・ Fullerton, California
・ Fullerton, Hampshire
・ Fullerton, Illinois
・ Fullerton, Louisiana
・ Fullerton, Maryland
・ Fullerton, Nebraska
・ Fullerton, North Dakota
・ Fullerton, Pennsylvania
・ Fullerwood Park Residential Historic District
・ Fullerö Castle
・ Fulletby
・ Fullgás
・ Fullhurst Community College
・ Fullilove
Fullilove v. Klutznick
・ Fulling
・ Fullkawa Honpo
・ Fullmetal Alchemist
・ Fullmetal Alchemist (anime)
・ Fullmetal Alchemist and the Broken Angel
・ Fullmoon Maple
・ Fullo
・ Fullofaudes
・ FullPaint
・ Fullpower Technologies
・ Fullrate
・ Fullrigger (boardgame)
・ Fullrun Tyre
・ Fulls, Illinois


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Fullilove v. Klutznick : ウィキペディア英語版
Fullilove v. Klutznick

''Fullilove v. Klutznick'', 448 U.S. 448 (1980), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.
== Opinion of the Court ==
The Court was deeply divided as to both the rationale for the decision and the outcome. Five separate opinions were filed, none of which commanded the support of more than three members of the Court. Chief Justice Burger wrote a plurality opinion, joined by Justices White and Powell; Justice Powell also wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Marshall delivered an opinion for a second plurality with an entirely different basis in law, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun.〔http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0448_0448_ZC1.html〕 Since there was no single opinion that represented the views of a majority of the court, nor a clear proposition in either plurality which commanded a majority, only the judgment of the court—affirming the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—has unambiguously precedential value.
The Court held that the minority set-aside program was a legitimate exercise of congressional power, and that under the particular facts at issue, Congress could pursue the objectives of the minority business enterprise program under the Spending Power. The plurality opinion noted that Congress could have regulated the practices of contractors on federally funded projects under the Commerce Clause as well. The plurality further held that in the remedial context, Congress did not have to act "in a wholly 'color-blind' fashion."

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Fullilove v. Klutznick」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.