| 词条 | Commandeering |
| 释义 |
Commandeering is an act of appropriation by the military or police whereby they take possession of the property of a member of the public. In United States law, it also refers to federal government actions which would force a state government to take some action that it otherwise would not take.[1] The US Supreme Court has held that commandeering violates principles designed to prevent either the state or federal governments from becoming too powerful.[2][3] Writing for the majority in 1997 for Printz v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "[t]he Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."[4] States derive their protection from commandeering from the Tenth Amendment.[5] Distinction from preemptionThe Congress may enact federal law that supersedes or preempts state law, making the state law invalid. The distinction between commandeering and preemption is at issue in Christie v. NCAA, a case involving sports betting.[5][6] In the case of marijuana legalization, federal law preempts laws in those states that have authorized its use. The federal government has chosen not to enforce provisions of federal law that apply to otherwise law-abiding adult use in those states. If the Department of Justice were to challenge these state laws, a likely legal objection would be that this is commandeering.[7] See also
References1. ^{{cite court |litigants = Conant v. Walters |vol = 309 |reporter = F.3d |opinion = 629 |pinpoint = |court = 9th Cir. |date = October 29, 2002 |url= http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/conant.htm}} 2. ^{{cite court |litigants = New York v. United States | vol=505 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=144 | date=1992}} 3. ^{{cite court | litigants=Printz v. United States | vol=521 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=898 | date=1997}} 4. ^{{cite court | litigants=Printz v. United States | vol=521 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=898 | pinpoint=935 | date=1997}} 5. ^{{cite news|last1=de Vogue|first1=Ariane|title=Chris Christie goes to the Supreme Court on sports betting|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/christie-scotus-sports-betting/index.html|accessdate=4 December 2017|publisher=CNN|date=4 December 2017}} 6. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2017/12/the_supreme_court_is_skeptical_of_the_ban_on_sports_betting.html |title=Chris Christie’s Big Gamble: The Supreme Court appears poised to let every state authorize sports betting. |first=Mark Joseph |last=Stern |publisher=Slate |date=4 December 2017}} 7. ^1 {{cite journal|last1=Schwartz|first1=Davis|title=High Federalism: Marijuana Legalization and the Limits of Federal Power to Regulate States|journal=Cardozo Law Review|date=March 21, 2013|volume=35|issue=567|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2237618}} External links{{wiktionary|commandeer}}
1 : Legal terminology |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。