商品簡介
作者簡介
張法連
1969年1月生,山東聊城人,中國政法大學外國語學院教授、碩士生導師,並在多所高校兼職博導,全國法律英語學科知名教授。
名人/編輯推薦
序
法律英語是高校英語、法學等專業教學改革的新方向。隨著高校英語專業教學改革不斷深化,國內許多高校在外語院(系)開設了法律英語課程,有的院系設置了法律英語方向,有些高校大膽創新,開始嘗試設置法律英語專業,收到了良好的社會效果。 2013年高等教育出版社出版發行《法律英語專業教學大綱》,標誌著法律英語專業的誕生,給高校外語院系設置法律英語專業指明了方向。本套教材正是以該大綱為重要依據編寫而成。
眾所周知,美國法是英美法系的典型代表,其法律體系完整、內容豐富,既有傳統的普通法,又有新興的成文法;既有統一的聯邦法,又有各州的法律。同時,美國法在世界範圍內影響深遠,學習研究美國法意義重大,這不僅表現為許多國家都在研究美國的法律規則,借鑒其成熟做法,還表現為許多國際公約也參照美國法的理念、原則、規則制定。因此,本書作為法律英語專業的泛讀教材,主要選取了美國歷史上最有影響的32個案例,按時間順序編排,分上下兩冊,希望讀者通過研讀這些經典案例,了解法官判案推理過程和有關法律、法規的適用,更有利於學習標準的法律英語,也更容易掌握美國法的精髓。本套教材共包括《法律英語精讀教程》(上、下)、《法律英語泛讀教程》(上、下)、《法律英語視聽說》《法律英語寫作教程》《法律英語翻譯教程》和《英美法律文化教程》以及配套教學使用的《英美法律術語雙解》。
本書共分16個單元,32課時教學內容,可供法律英語專業學生使用一個學期。讀完每篇案例後,教師都要指導學生如何brief the case,並討論以下幾個問題:Holding of the case? Facts of the case? Majority opinon? Concurring or dissenting opinion? And your comment on the case.書末附錄I有每篇案例的註釋,供學生檢查學習掌握案例的情況。建議教師首先指導學生學習附錄Ⅱ Ⅳ的有關內容,這是研讀美國法案例的基本知識。
成書過程中,我們參考了大量國內外有關資料,在此謹對原作者表示感謝。參加本書編寫工作的還有北京外國語大學法學院鄭小軍教授,中國石油大學(華東)張建科、徐文彬副教授,甘肅政法大學趙永平、馬彥峰副教授以及美國印第安納大學法學院訪問學者姜芳女士等。感謝法律英語證書(LEC)全國統一考試指導委員會將該套教材指定為複習應考LEC的參考用書。
各位教師或同學在使用本書的過程中有什麼問題,歡迎及時與編者聯繫。
目次
CONTENTS
法律英語泛讀教程(上)
目錄
Unit 1 WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, SECRETARY OF
STATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Unit 2 McCULLOCH v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al
Unit 3 PLESSY v. FERGUSON
Unit 4 LOCHNER v. NEW YORK
Unit 5 ALA SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
Unit 6 KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES
Unit 7 SHELLEY ET UX. v. KRAEMER ET UX
Unit 8 BROWN ET AL.v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL
Unit 9 ENGEL ET AL. v. VITALE ET AL
Unit 10 GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR
Unit 11 HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC.v.UNITED STATES ET AL
Unit 12 NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN
Unit 13 GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT
Unit 14 FRONTIERO ET VIR v. RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, ET AL
Unit 15 LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA
Unit 16 GRIGGS ET AL. v. DUKE POWER CO
Appendix Ⅰ ANNOTATIONS TO CASES
Appendix Ⅱ HOW TO BRIEF A CASE
Appendix Ⅲ HOW TO READ A LEGAL OPINION
Appendix Ⅳ HOW TO READ A LEGAL CITATION
書摘/試閱
If the solicitude of the convention,respecting our peace with foreign powers9 induced a provision that the supreme court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them;yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases,if no further restriction on the powers of congress had been intended.That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases,with such exceptions as congress might make,is no restriction;unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.
When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system,divides it into one supreme,and so many inferior courts as the legislature may ordain and establish;then enumerates its powers,and proceeds so far to distribute them,as to define the jurisdiction of the supreme court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction,and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction;the plain import of the words seems to be,that in one class of cases its jurisdiction is original,and not appellate;in the other it is appellate,and not original.If any other construction would render the clause inoperative,that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction,and for adhering to their obvious meaning.
To enable this court,then,to issue a mandamus,it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction,or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.
It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may beexercised in a variety of forms,and that if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose,that will must be obeyed.This is true,yet the jurisdiction must be appellate,not original.
It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction,that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted,and does not create that cause.Although,therefore,a mandamus may be directed to courts,yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper,is in effect the same as to sustain an original action for that paper,and,therefore,seems not to belong to appellate,but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary in such a case as this,to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.
The authority,therefore,given to the supreme court,by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States,to issue writs of mandamus to public officers,appears not to be warranted by the constitution;and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.
The question,whether an act,repugnant to the constitution,can become the law of the land,is a question deeply interesting to the United States;but,happily,not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles,supposed to have been long and well established,to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish,for their future government,such principles as,in their opinion,shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion;nor can it,nor ought it,to be frequently repeated.The principles,therefore,so established,are deemed fundamental.And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme,and can seldom act,they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government,and assigns to different departments their respective powers.It may either stop here,or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
……
主題書展
更多書展本週66折
您曾經瀏覽過的商品
購物須知
大陸出版品因裝訂品質及貨運條件與台灣出版品落差甚大,除封面破損、內頁脫落等較嚴重的狀態,其餘商品將正常出貨。
特別提醒:部分書籍附贈之內容(如音頻mp3或影片dvd等)已無實體光碟提供,需以QR CODE 連結至當地網站註冊“並通過驗證程序”,方可下載使用。
無現貨庫存之簡體書,將向海外調貨:
海外有庫存之書籍,等候約45個工作天;
海外無庫存之書籍,平均作業時間約60個工作天,然不保證確定可調到貨,尚請見諒。
為了保護您的權益,「三民網路書店」提供會員七日商品鑑賞期(收到商品為起始日)。
若要辦理退貨,請在商品鑑賞期內寄回,且商品必須是全新狀態與完整包裝(商品、附件、發票、隨貨贈品等)否則恕不接受退貨。