Begriffsverdrängung and Freedom of Religion. Notes on interpretation in private law
Article Sidebar
Published:
Jun 18, 2020
Keywords:
Religious exemption, fundamental rights, private law interpretation, subjective situation
Main Article Content
Abstract
La exención religiosa en los Estados Unidos es brevemente analizada por los efectos de su carencia conceptual, sobre el sistema y su ámbito operativo. La aplicación en el derecho privado, en cuanto fase de la interpretación que desarrolla el control sobre los efectos de las normas y la taxonomía de los ámbitos, aún más resalta estos efectos a nivel sistemático. El enfoque iuprivatístico permite evidenciar el desplazamiento conceptual que se genera por parte de la Primera Enmienda en relación a otros ámbitos aplicativos y la función de clasificación que, con respecto a la exención, puede ser desarrollado por medio del concepto de situación subjetiva.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
Tolone Azzariti, S. (2020). Begriffsverdrängung and Freedom of Religion. Notes on interpretation in private law. Revista De La Facultad De Jurisprudencia., 1(7), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.26807/rfj.v7i7.265
Section
Original article (research)
References
BETTI, E., 1990, Teoria generale della interpretazione, II voll., Giuffré, Milano;
BIRKS, P., 2000, English Private Law, vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford;
BRíƒÅ“TT, L., 1907, Die Kunst der Rechtsanwendung. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodenlehre der Geisteswissenschaften, J. Guttentag, Berlin.
CANARIS, C. W., 1968, Systemdenken und Systembegriff in der Jurisprudenz, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin;
CANARIS, C. W., 1999, Lí¢€â„¢incidenza dei diritti fondamentali sul diritto privato tedesco, Studium Juris, p. 359-370;
CONKLE, D. O., 2016, Religion, Law, and the Constitution, Foundation Press, St. Paul, 2016.
EPSTEIN, L., HOEKSTRA V., SEGAL, J. A., SPAETH, H. J., 1998, Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justice? J. Politics, 60, 3, 801-818
ESBECK, C. H., 2000, Differentiating the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, J. Church & St., 42, 311-334;
FRIEDMANN D., BARAK-EREZ D., (eds.) (2001), AA. VV., Human Rights in Private Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford-Portland.
GREENAWALT, K., 1984, Religion as a Concept in Constitutional Law, Cal. L. Rev., 72, 753-816;
GREENAWALT, K., 2006, Religion and the Constitution, 1, Free Exercise and Fairness, Princeton University Press, Princeton;
GREENAWALT, K., 2008, Religion and the Constitution, 2, Establishment and Fairness, Princeton University Press, Princeton;
HECK, P., (1914), Gesetzesauslegung und Interessenjurisprudenz, AcP, Bd. 112, p. 1-318;
LAYCOCK, D., 1986, A Survey of Religious Liberty in the United States, Ohio St. L. J., 47, 409- 451.
LARENZ, K., Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1975;
McCONNELL, M. W., BERG, T. C., LUND, C. C., 2016, Religion and the Constitution, 4th edition, Wolters Kluwer, New York.
MENGER, K., 1883, Untersuchungen í¼ber die Methode der Sozialwissenschaften, und der Politischen 탖konomie insbesondere, Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig;
QUINT, P. E., (1989), Free Speech and Private Law in German Constitutional Theory. Md. L. Rev., 48, p. 247-349.
R탖THEL, A., 1968, Normkonkretisierung im Privatrecht, Mohr Siebeck, Tí¼bingen;
ROUBIER, P., 2005, Droits subjectifs et situations juridiques, Dalloz, Paris;
SANDEL, M. J., 1989, Religious Liberty í¢€" Freedom of Conscience or Freedom of Choice, Utah L. Rev., 597-615;
SHERWIN, E., 2009, Legal Taxonomy, Legal Theory, 15, p. 25-54;
STRAUSS, D. A., 1996, Common Law Constitutional Interpretation, U. Chi. L. Rev., 63, 878-935;
TOLONE AZZARITI, S., 2006, Diritto private globale, Objective Pluralism e libertí di religione, Luigi Pellegrini Editore, Cosenza;
TOLONE AZZARITI, S., (2020), La interpretación de la exención religiosa en la perspectiva de la situación subjetiva de derecho privado. Efectos irreflejos de la carencia conceptual y desplazamiento normativo en la libertad de religión de los Estados Unidos de América, Pensar en Derecho, 15, p. 263 í¢€" 372;
Table of cases.
Supreme Court
Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, 330 U.S. 1;
Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961, 367 US 488
United States v. Seeger, 1965, 380 US 163;
Welsh v. United States, 1970, 398 US 333;
Gillette v. United States, 1971, 401 US 437;
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972, 406 US 205.
United States v. Lee, 1982, 455 U.S. 252;
Employment Division v. Smith, 1990, 494 U.S. 872;
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992, 505 US 833;
Mc Creary County, Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky, 2005, 545 US 844;
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014, 573 US 682.
Lower Courts
Malnak v. Yogi, 1979, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir.) (per curiam).
BIRKS, P., 2000, English Private Law, vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford;
BRíƒÅ“TT, L., 1907, Die Kunst der Rechtsanwendung. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodenlehre der Geisteswissenschaften, J. Guttentag, Berlin.
CANARIS, C. W., 1968, Systemdenken und Systembegriff in der Jurisprudenz, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin;
CANARIS, C. W., 1999, Lí¢€â„¢incidenza dei diritti fondamentali sul diritto privato tedesco, Studium Juris, p. 359-370;
CONKLE, D. O., 2016, Religion, Law, and the Constitution, Foundation Press, St. Paul, 2016.
EPSTEIN, L., HOEKSTRA V., SEGAL, J. A., SPAETH, H. J., 1998, Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justice? J. Politics, 60, 3, 801-818
ESBECK, C. H., 2000, Differentiating the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, J. Church & St., 42, 311-334;
FRIEDMANN D., BARAK-EREZ D., (eds.) (2001), AA. VV., Human Rights in Private Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford-Portland.
GREENAWALT, K., 1984, Religion as a Concept in Constitutional Law, Cal. L. Rev., 72, 753-816;
GREENAWALT, K., 2006, Religion and the Constitution, 1, Free Exercise and Fairness, Princeton University Press, Princeton;
GREENAWALT, K., 2008, Religion and the Constitution, 2, Establishment and Fairness, Princeton University Press, Princeton;
HECK, P., (1914), Gesetzesauslegung und Interessenjurisprudenz, AcP, Bd. 112, p. 1-318;
LAYCOCK, D., 1986, A Survey of Religious Liberty in the United States, Ohio St. L. J., 47, 409- 451.
LARENZ, K., Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1975;
McCONNELL, M. W., BERG, T. C., LUND, C. C., 2016, Religion and the Constitution, 4th edition, Wolters Kluwer, New York.
MENGER, K., 1883, Untersuchungen í¼ber die Methode der Sozialwissenschaften, und der Politischen 탖konomie insbesondere, Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig;
QUINT, P. E., (1989), Free Speech and Private Law in German Constitutional Theory. Md. L. Rev., 48, p. 247-349.
R탖THEL, A., 1968, Normkonkretisierung im Privatrecht, Mohr Siebeck, Tí¼bingen;
ROUBIER, P., 2005, Droits subjectifs et situations juridiques, Dalloz, Paris;
SANDEL, M. J., 1989, Religious Liberty í¢€" Freedom of Conscience or Freedom of Choice, Utah L. Rev., 597-615;
SHERWIN, E., 2009, Legal Taxonomy, Legal Theory, 15, p. 25-54;
STRAUSS, D. A., 1996, Common Law Constitutional Interpretation, U. Chi. L. Rev., 63, 878-935;
TOLONE AZZARITI, S., 2006, Diritto private globale, Objective Pluralism e libertí di religione, Luigi Pellegrini Editore, Cosenza;
TOLONE AZZARITI, S., (2020), La interpretación de la exención religiosa en la perspectiva de la situación subjetiva de derecho privado. Efectos irreflejos de la carencia conceptual y desplazamiento normativo en la libertad de religión de los Estados Unidos de América, Pensar en Derecho, 15, p. 263 í¢€" 372;
Table of cases.
Supreme Court
Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, 330 U.S. 1;
Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961, 367 US 488
United States v. Seeger, 1965, 380 US 163;
Welsh v. United States, 1970, 398 US 333;
Gillette v. United States, 1971, 401 US 437;
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972, 406 US 205.
United States v. Lee, 1982, 455 U.S. 252;
Employment Division v. Smith, 1990, 494 U.S. 872;
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992, 505 US 833;
Mc Creary County, Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky, 2005, 545 US 844;
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014, 573 US 682.
Lower Courts
Malnak v. Yogi, 1979, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir.) (per curiam).