| dbo:abstract
|
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. The case arose from a challenge to a provision of the Violence Against Women Act that provided victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that the Commerce Clause gave Congress only the power to regulate activities that were directly economic in nature, even if there were indirect economic consequences. Rehnquist also held that the Equal Protection Clause did not authorize the law because the clause applies only to acts by states, not to acts by private individuals. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice David Souter argued that the majority revived an old and discredited interpretation of the Commerce Clause. (en)
- 미국 대 모리슨 사건(United States v. Morrison)은 미국 연방대법원의 유명판례이다. 대법원은 여성에 대한 폭력은 연방의회가 통상조항하에서 허용된 권한을 벗어나 위헌이라고 판시하였다. 이유로 규제대상이 되는 물건의 주경계선을 넘은 이동과 같은 규제대상과 주간통상과의 상당히 뚜렷한 관련성을 보여주지 못한 것이다. (ko)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 25087 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-01-11 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- United States v. Morrison, (en)
|
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-05-15 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- United States v. Antonio J. Morrison et al. and Christy Brzonkala v. Antonio J. Morrison et al. (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- Congress did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause thus did not permit the enactment of the Act. The Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable since no state was responsible for causing the alleged harm. (en)
|
| dbp:joindissent
|
- Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer (en)
- Stevens; Souter, Ginsburg (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
|
- U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3; U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (en)
|
| dbp:litigants
|
- United States v. Morrison (en)
|
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oralargument
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- 미국 대 모리슨 사건(United States v. Morrison)은 미국 연방대법원의 유명판례이다. 대법원은 여성에 대한 폭력은 연방의회가 통상조항하에서 허용된 권한을 벗어나 위헌이라고 판시하였다. 이유로 규제대상이 되는 물건의 주경계선을 넘은 이동과 같은 규제대상과 주간통상과의 상당히 뚜렷한 관련성을 보여주지 못한 것이다. (ko)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- United States v. Morrison (en)
- 미국 대 모리슨 사건 (ko)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- United States v. Antonio J. Morrison et al. and Christy Brzonkala v. Antonio J. Morrison et al. (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is rdfs:seeAlso
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
