Блэк, Хьюго цитаты

Хьюго Лафайет Блэк — американский политик и юрист. Член Демократической партии США. Был сенатором от штата Алабама в Сенате США с 1927 по 1937 годы. Судья Верховного суда США с 1937 по 1971 годы, назначен президентом Франклином Делано Рузвельтом, назначение одобрено голосованием Сената . Хьюго Блэк был первым из девяти кандидатов, назначенных Рузвельтом, и, кроме Уильяма О. Дугласа, пережил их всех. Блэк считается одним из самых влиятельных судей Верховного суда в XX столетии.

За свой срок службы в Верховном суде, четвёртый по продолжительности, Блэк был известен своей текстуалистичной трактовкой Конституции США и из-за своего убеждение, что свободы, гарантированные Биллем о правах , были навязаны Штатам Четырнадцатой поправкой к Конституции. Его юридическая деятельность была темой многочисленных дискуссий. Из-за его требования чёткого текстуального анализа глав Конституции, вопреки гибкой юриспруденции многих его коллег, Блэка трудно охарактеризовать как либерала или консерватора, как эти термины понимаются в современном политическом дискурсе США. С одной стороны, его буквальное толкование Билля о правах и его теория объединения часто интерпретируются как содействие усилению гражданских прав и свобод. С другой стороны, Блэк твёрдо противостоял доктрине относительно процедуры рассмотрения дела с надлежащим соблюдением норм материального права и был убеждён, что принцип неприкосновенности личной жизни не имеет никакого обоснования в Конституции, голосуя против него во время судебного процесса «Грисвольд против Коннектикута». Wikipedia  

✵ 27. Февраль 1886 – 25. Сентябрь 1971
Блэк, Хьюго фото
Блэк, Хьюго: 26   цитат 0   Нравится

Блэк, Хьюго: Цитаты на английском языке

“The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security”

Concurring in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
Контексте: The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security ….

“The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say -- that the people's religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office.”

Writing for the court, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Контексте: Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say -- that the people's religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. Under that Amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.

“I read "no law . . . abridging" to mean no law abridging.”

Concurring opinion, Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959).
Контексте: The First Amendment's language leaves no room for inference that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are slight. That Amendment provides, in simple words, that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." I read "no law... abridging" to mean no law abridging.

“The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith. The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate. Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand. The Founders knew that only a few years after the Book of Common Prayer became the only accepted form of religious services in the established Church of England, an Act of Uniformity was passed to compel all Englishmen to attend those services and to make it a criminal offense to conduct or attend religious gatherings of any other kind-- a law which was consistently flouted by dissenting religious groups in England and which contributed to widespread persecutions of people like John Bunyan who persisted in holding "unlawful [religious] meetings... to the great disturbance and distraction of the good subjects of this kingdom...."”

And they knew that similar persecutions had received the sanction of law in several of the colonies in this country soon after the establishment of official religions in those colonies. It was in large part to get completely away from this sort of systematic religious persecution that the Founders brought into being our Nation, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights with its prohibition against any governmental establishment of religion.
Writing for the court, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

“That Amendment requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.”

Writing for the court in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) about the consequences of the First Amendments Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause for the separation of church and state.