Ƴancin yin ƙorafe-ƙorafe na amurka

Ƴancin yin ƙorafe-ƙorafe na amurka
Haƙƙin Miƙa Ƙara da aspect in a geographic region (en)
Bayanai
Ƙasa	Tarayyar Amurka
Wuri
39°49′41″N 98°34′46″W

Hakkin yin korafi an kare shi ta hanyar Kwaskwarimar Farko a cikin Dokar Hakki.

Wannan shari'ar ta taso ne a Ƙarƙashin Ƙarƙashin Ƙarfafawa, ba Jigon Magana ba. Bangarorin sun shigar da karar ne bisa hujjar cewa korafe-korafen Guarnieri da karar korafe-korafe ne da ake kare su daga Sakin Koke. Abubuwan da wannan Kotun ta kafa sun tabbatar da cewa Sashe na Ƙorafi ya kare ’yancin ɗaiɗaikun su ɗaukaka ƙara zuwa kotuna da sauran tarukan da gwamnati ta kafa don warware takaddamar shari’a. ... Ko da yake wannan shari'ar ta ci gaba a ƙarƙashin Dokar Ƙaddamarwa, Guarnieri kamar yadda sauƙi zai iya zargin cewa mai aiki ya rama shi game da jawabin da ke kunshe a cikin koke-kokensa da kararsa. ... Tambayar da wannan shari'ar ta gabatar ita ce ko tarihi da maƙasudin Sashe na Ƙoƙarin Ƙoƙarin Ƙaddamarwa sun ba da hujjar ƙaddamar da babban abin alhaki lokacin da ma'aikaci ya nemi kariya a maimakon kariyar da Sashen Magana ya ba shi.

Ba lallai ba ne a ce sassan biyu iri ɗaya ne a cikin aikinsu ko manufarsu da tasirinsu don amincewa da cewa haƙƙoƙin magana da koke sun yi tarayya da juna. Wannan Kotun ta ce 'yancin yin magana da 'yancin yin koke "hakkoki ne." Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 (1945); duba kuma Wayte v. Amurka, 470 U.S. 598, 610, n. 11 (1985). "Ba bisa kuskure ko kwatsam ba ne aka hade hakokin 'yancin fadin albarkacin baki da yada labarai a cikin garanti guda tare da 'yancin jama'a cikin lumana na hallara da kuma gabatar da koke-koke na neman gyara." Thomas, 323 U.S., a shekara ta 530. Duka jawabai da koke-koke suna da nasaba da tsarin demokradiyya, ko da yake ba lallai ba ne a cikin hanya daya. 'Yancin neman koke na baiwa 'yan kasa damar bayyana ra'ayoyinsu, fatansu, da damuwarsu ga gwamnatinsu da zababbun wakilansu, yayin da 'yancin yin magana yana karfafa musayar ra'ayoyin jama'a da ke da muhimmanci ga dimokuradiyya mai ra'ayin rikau da kuma dukkanin bangarorin ra'ayoyi da kuma harkokin bil'adama. Bayan fagen siyasa, duka magana da koke suna ciyar da kai tsaye, duk da cewa haƙƙin shigar da ƙara ya shafi magana ne ga gwamnati don neman gyara.

Bai kamata kotuna su ɗauka cewa akwai wani mahimmin daidaici a cikin Sashe biyun ba ko kuma Kalmomin Magana dole ne kuma a kowane hali suna warware iƙirarin Ƙorafi. Duba ibid. (haƙƙin magana da koke “ba iri ɗaya bane”). Fassarar Fassarar Koke dole ne ta kasance ta hanyar manufofi da muradin da ke tattare da hakki. Takardar koke tana isar da damuwar marubucinta na musamman ga gwamnati kuma, a tsarinta na yau da kullun, ta bukaci matakin da gwamnati ta dauka don magance wadannan matsalolin. Duba ['Sure-Tan Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 896-897 (1984)].

Ra'ayin wannan Kotun a [McDonald v. Smith]], 472 U.S. 479 (1985), wani lokaci an fassara shi da nufin cewa 'yancin yin koke ba zai iya wuce gaba da 'yancin yin magana ba; amma McDonald an gudanar da shi ne kawai cewa jawabin da ke ƙunshe a cikin takardar koke yana ƙarƙashin ƙa'idodi iri ɗaya don bata suna da kuma ɓatanci kamar magana a wajen ƙara. A cikin waɗannan yanayi Kotun ta sami "babu ingantaccen tushe don ba da babbar kariya ga tsarin mulki ga maganganun da aka yi a cikin koke… fiye da sauran maganganun Gyaran Farko." Id., a 485. Za a iya tasowa lokuta inda damuwa na musamman na Faɗin Ƙorafe-ƙorafe zai ba da ingantaccen tushe don bincike na musamman; kuma idan haka ne, ka'idoji da ka'idojin da suka ayyana haƙƙoƙin biyu na iya bambanta ta fuskar girmamawa da tsarawa.

— 564 U.S. a 387-389

A Amurka, an lissafa haƙƙin shigar da ƙara a cikin Kwaskwarimar Farko ga Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Amurka, wanda musamman ya haramta Majalisa daga taƙaita "ƴancin mutane don taruwa cikin lumana, da kuma yin kira ga Gwamnati don gyara ƙorafe-ƙorafe".

Koda yake sau da yawa ana watsi da su don tallafawa wasu shahararrun 'yanci, kuma wani lokacin ana ɗaukar su a matsayin marasa amfani, wasu' ƴanci da yawa na farar hula ana iya aiwatar da su a kan gwamnati ne kawai ta hanyar amfani da wannan haƙƙin asali.

A cewar Majalisa Bincike, tun lokacin da aka rubuta Kundin Tsarin Mulki,

haƙƙin shigar da kara ya faɗaɗa. Ba a ƙuntata shi da buƙatun "maido da korafe-korafe" a kowane ma'anar waɗannan kalmomi ba, amma ya haɗa da buƙatun da gwamnati ke yi amfani da ikonta don haɓaka sha'awa da wadatar masu shigar da kara da ra'ayoyinsu game da batutuwan rikice-rikice na siyasa. Hakkin ya kai ga "kusanci da 'yan ƙasa ko kungiyoyin su ga hukumomin gudanarwa (waɗanda duka halittu ne na majalisa, da makamai na zartarwa) da kuma kotuna, reshe na uku na Gwamnati. Tabbas haƙƙin shigar da kara ya kai ga dukkan sassan Gwamnati. Hakkin shiga kotuna hakika wani bangare ne na haƙƙin shigar.

Tushen tarihi

A cikin Blackstone's Commentaries, Amurkawa a cikin goma sha uku Colonies sun karanta cewa ƴancin yin kira ga sarki, ko kuma gidan majalisa, don gyara ƙorafe-ƙorafe" shine "ƴancin kowane mutum".

A cikin shekara ta 1776, Sanarwar 'yancin kai ta ambaci gazawar Sarki George na gyara ƙorafe-ƙorafe da aka jera a cikin ƙorafe-ƙorafe mulkin mallaka, kamar su Ru'ar Itacen ta shekarar 1775, a matsayin hujja don bayyana' ƴancin kai:

A kowane mataki na waɗannan zalunci Mun yi kira ga fansa a cikin mafi ƙasƙanci: An amsa korafinmu da aka maimaita kawai ta hanyar maimaita rauni. Yarima, wanda halin sa ya kasance alama ce ta kowane aiki wanda zai iya bayyana mai zalunci, bai cancanci zama mai mulkin 'yanci ba.

A tarihi, ana iya gano haƙƙin zuwa takardun Ingilishi kamar Magna Carta, wanda, ta hanyar karɓar ta masarautar, ya tabbatar da haƙƙin. 14 Edw III Dokar 1 Babi na 5 (1340) ta sanya takarda a kan tsarin doka. Ya buƙaci a samar da kwamiti a kowane majalisa don "ji ta hanyar ƙorafin da aka kawo musu, ƙorafin duk waɗanda za su koka musu game da irin wannan jinkiri ko ƙorafin da ake yi musu".

Sa'an nan kuma daga baya, Mataki na 5 Bill of Rights 1689, wanda a bayyane ya bayyana "Shin Hakkin Batutuwa ne su nemi Sarki kuma duk Alƙawari da Shari'a don irin wannan Petitioning ba bisa ƙa'ida ba ne". "Gaskiya na ƙorafe-ƙorafe", wanda aka samo a cikin sashi na ƙasar Amurika na Kwaskwarimar Farko ta Amurka an samo shi a cikin Mataki na 13 na Dokar 'Yancin 1689 "Kuma don Gyara duk korafe-rikicen da kuma gyaran ƙarfafawa da adana Majalisa na Lawes ya kamata a gudanar da shi akai-akai. " yana nuna cewa haƙƙin neman za a yi amfani da haƙƙin neman korafe-akai a majalisar. Ana samun irin waɗannan sassan a cikin Petition of Rights na Scotland.

Yarima William na Orange (Sarki na gaba William III) ya bayyana a cikin sanarwar sa na Dalili ƙorafe-ƙorafe da za su haifar da Dokar 'Yancin shekara ta 1688 . Game da haƙƙin shigar da ƙara ya yi nuni da Shari'ar Bishops Bakwai inda Ubangiji na Ruhaniya ciki har da Arch Bishop na Canterbury suka himmatu ga Hasumiyar kuma suka yi gwaji don yin biyayya da umarni don karanta Sanarwar Indulgence. An gwada su kuma juriya ta wanke su. An gano cewa ba za a iya yanke wa Bishops hukunci na cin zarafin masu tayar da kayar baya ba saboda suna amfani da haƙƙin neman izini wanda ke cikin Dokar Karin Rikicin 1661 .

Dangane da keta haƙƙin shigar da ƙara, Yarima na Orange yana da waɗannan abubuwan da za su ce a cikin Sanarwar Dalilinsa, "Kuma duk da haka ba za a iya yin kamar ba, cewa kowane Sarakuna, yadda girman ikon su ya kasance, da kuma yadda za su kasance a cikin Ayyukansa, sun taɓa yin la'akari da shi laifi ga Batutuwarsu su zo nan, a cikin duk Submission da girmamawa, kuma a cikin adadin da ya kamata ya kamata ya sami iyakar Dokar da ta sa ya zama ba zai yiwu ba don yin biyayya ga Dokokin da su Dokar 16 ba. Dokar 'Yancin shekara ta 1688 ba ta ba da irin wannan iyaka ga taron ba. A ƙarƙashin doka ta kowa, haƙƙin mutum na yin korafi yana nuna haƙƙin mutane da yawa su taru bisa doka don wannan dalili. Haƙƙin da ƙasar Ingila ke da shi na taruwa don yin ƙorafin an sanya shi a cikin Kwaskwarimar Farko ta Amurka.

Shari'ar Bishops guda bakwai ta haifar da Art.1 Bill of Rights (1688), wanda ya bayyana cewa irin wannan dakatar da dokoki ba tare da yardar Majalisar ba, ba tare da la'akari da "gaskiya mai yiwuwa" an gane shi ba bisa ka'ida ba ne "cewa ikon da ake yi na dakatar da Dokoki ta hanyar Regall Authority ba tare da Yarima na Parlyament ba ba ne ba bisa ka ga wannan mulkin da gangan ba, Yarima na Orange yana da waɗannan iko (mai iko da shi) a cikin sanarwar Reason, "cewa, dole ne ya dakatar da shi da ikon da shi ga Allah, ya kamata ya sauka, ya sauƙaƙa ga waɗannan iko, ya sa'a ga wannan iko, "Sharce-sa, ya saɓa da shi, ya sa sa'a, ya sa su, ya sa a kan wannan iko, ya dogara da ikon kisa, ya sa."cewa Sarki zai iya dakatar da aiwatar da waɗancan Dokokin da suka shafi cin amana ko cin amana, sai dai idan an yi kamar dai an rufe shi da iko mai zalunci da iko, kuma cewa Rayuka, 'Yanci, Daraja, da dukiyar Subjects, sun dogara gaba ɗaya akan yardarsa da jin daɗi, kuma suna ƙarƙashinsa; wanda dole ne ya bi ikon Sarki ya dakatar da aiwatarwar Dokoki, da su. "

Amfani na farko

Ayyuka na farko da kuma kare haƙƙin yin ƙorafin a cikin ƙasar Amurka shine ya ba da shawarar kawo ƙarshen Bautar ta hanyar aikawa da Majalisa sama da korafe-korafe dubu a kan batun, wanda wasu ƴan ƙasa 130,000 suka sanya hannu. Farawa a cikin shekara ta 1836, Majalisar Wakilai ta karɓi jerin ƙa'idojin gag waɗanda ta atomatik suka gabatar da duk irin waɗannan takardun adawa da bautar baƙi, kuma suka hana tattaunawarsu. Majalisar Dattijai ta dauki irin wannan mataki. Tsohon shugaban kasar John Quincy Adams da sauran wakilan sun sami nasarar soke waɗannan dokoki a cikin shekara ta 1844 bisa la'akari da cewa ya saɓa wa haƙƙin Tsarin Mulki (a cikin Kwaskwarimar Farko) don "ƙarar gwamnati don gyara ƙorafe-ƙorafe".

Yankin da ake ciki

Yayin da haramcin tauye haƙƙin neman koke daga farko yana nuni ne ga majalisar tarayya (Majalisar dokoki) da kotuna, daga baya rukunan haɗakarwa ya faɗaɗa kare haƙƙin da yake da shi a halin yanzu, a kan dukkan kotuna na jihohi da tarayya da majalisun dokoki da kuma sassan zartarwa na jihar. da gwamnatocin tarayya. Ƴancin shigar da ƙara ya kunshi a karkashin inuwarta ‘yancin shigar da gwamnati kara. Ana ganin shari’ar farar hula tsakanin wasu mutane biyu masu zaman kansu ko wasu hukumomi a matsayin Haƙƙi ne ga ƙara, tunda suna neman tsarin kotunan gwamnati da ta gyara musu matsalolinsu..

Wasu sun bayyana lobbying a matsayin kowane irin rinjayar jami'in gwamnati kuma sun ce shigar da ƙara ta haɗa da shi. Sauran sun ce sashi na ƙorafin bai ba da damar yin lobby ba. Lobbying ya haɗa da kusantar jami'in gwamnati a asirce, mai yiwuwa yana ba su kuɗi. Amma yin ƙorafi, kamar yadda masu kafa Amurka suka san shi, tsari ne na jama'a, ba tare da kuɗi ba.

Wasu masu shigar da ƙara sun yi jayayya cewa haƙƙin yin ƙorafin ga gwamnati ya haɗa da abin da ake buƙata cewa gwamnati ta saurari ko ta amsa wa jama'a. Kotun Koli ta Amurka ta ki amincewa da wannan ra'ayi a cikin shekarar 1984:

Babu wani abu a cikin Kwaskwarimar Farko ko a cikin dokar shari'ar wannan Kotun da ke fassara shi yana nuna cewa haƙƙin yin magana, haɗuwa, da ƙarar yana buƙatar masu tsara manufofi na gwamnati su saurari ko su amsa ga sadarwa na membobin jama'a kan batutuwan jama'a.

Dubi kuma Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, inda Kotun Koli ta Amurka ta yanke hukuncin cewa ƙin Hukumar Hanyar Jihar Arkansas ta yi la'akari da ƙorafin ma'aikata lokacin da ƙungiyar ta shigar, maimakon kai tsaye daga ma'aikacin Ma'aikatar Hanyar Jihare, bai keta Kwaskwarimar Farko ga Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Amurka ba.

Kotun Ƙoli ta fassara Ma'anar Ƙaddamarwa a matsayin mai haɗawa tare da Ma'anar Magana ta Farko, amma a cikin shawarar da ta yanke a cikin shekara ta 2010 a cikin Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2010) ta yarda cewa akwai yiwuwar bambance-bambance tsakanin su biyu:

This case arises under the Petition Clause, not the Speech Clause. The parties litigated the case on the premise that Guarnieri's grievances and lawsuit are petitions protected by the Petition Clause. This Court's precedents confirm that the Petition Clause protects the right of individuals to appeal to courts and other forums established by the government for resolution of legal disputes. ... Although this case proceeds under the Petition Clause, Guarnieri just as easily could have alleged that his employer retaliated against him for the speech contained within his grievances and lawsuit. ... The question presented by this case is whether the history and purpose of the Petition Clause justify the imposition of broader liability when an employee invokes its protection instead of the protection afforded by the Speech Clause.

It is not necessary to say that the two Clauses are identical in their mandate or their purpose and effect to acknowledge that the rights of speech and petition share substantial common ground. This Court has said that the right to speak and the right to petition are "cognate rights." Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 530 (1945); see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 610, n. 11 (1985). "It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances." Thomas, 323 U. S., at 530. Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speech and petition advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government seeking redress of a grievance.

Courts should not presume there is always an essential equivalence in the two Clauses or that Speech Clause precedents necessarily and in every case resolve Petition Clause claims. See ibid. (rights of speech and petition are "not identical"). Interpretation of the Petition Clause must be guided by the objectives and aspirations that underlie the right. A petition conveys the special concerns of its author to the government and, in its usual form, requests action by the government to address those concerns. See [Sure-Tan Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883, 896–897 (1984)].

This Court’s opinion in McDonald v. Smith, 472 U. S. 479 (1985), has sometimes been interpreted to mean that the right to petition can extend no further than the right to speak; but McDonald held only that speech contained within a petition is subject to the same standards for defamation and libel as speech outside a petition. In those circumstances the Court found "no sound basis for granting greater constitutional protection to statements made in a petition … than other First Amendment expressions." Id., at 485. There may arise cases where the special concerns of the Petition Clause would provide a sound basis for a distinct analysis; and if that is so, the rules and principles that define the two rights might differ in emphasis and formulation.

— 564 U.S. at 387-389

Ƙuntatawa

Dokar Dakota ta Kudu ta haramta masu aikata laifukan jima'i daga yaɗa takardun shaida, suna ɗauke da matsakaicin hukuncin shekara guda a kurkuku da tarar dala $ 2,000.

Yaɗuwar takarda ta wani fursuna a Ofishin Kurkuku na Tarayya (BOP) wani haramtacciyar aiki ne a ƙarƙashin 28 CFR 541.3.3, kuma ana iya hukunta shi ta hanyar tsare shi kaɗai.

Kalmar "Kotu" kamar yadda aka yi amfani da ita a cikin waɗannan ƙa'idodin an ƙuntata ga waɗancan buƙatun da aka tsara a ɓangarorin zartarwa ko majalisa na gwamnati, kuma ba su haɗa da takardun da aka gabatar a kotun doka ba, waɗanda kuma ake kira "ƙarar", kamar buƙatun don coram nobis, mandamus, habeas corpus, haramta, da certiorari, da sauransu. Duk da yake ana kiran waɗannan a matsayin "ƙararru" su ne nau'ikan aikin farar hula a kan gwamnati wanda zai iya haifar da kotuna da ke ba da umarni ga gwamnati ta yi aiki, ko guje wa yin aiki, a cikin takamaiman hanya.

Haƙƙin ma'aikatan gwamnati na magance ƙorafe-ƙorafe tare da ma'aikatansu game da al'amuran da suka shafi aiki na iya ƙuntatawa ga hanyoyin gudanarwa a ƙarƙashin dokar Kotun Ƙoli. A cikin Pickering v. Hukumar Ilimi, Kotun Ƙoli ta yanke shawarar cewa kotun dole ne ta daidaita haƙƙin ma'aikaci na yin magana game da sha'awar gwamnati na kasancewa mai inganci da tasiri a cikin ayyukan jama'a da take yi. Daga baya Kotun Koli - Connick v. Myers, Garcetti v. Ceballos, da Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri - sun tabbatar da cewa dole ne ma'aikatan gwamnati su nuna cewa suna magana a matsayin ɗan ƙasa a kan batun damuwa na jama'a yayin da suke kai wa ma'aikatansu ƙarar a ƙarƙashin Magana ta Kwaskwarimar Farko ko Magana ta Petition Clauses.

Duba kuma

• Mu Mutanen (tsarin neman izini)