Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Antitrust (2)
- Originalism (2)
- "state action" (1)
- Administrative law (1)
- Apprendi (1)
-
- Blakely (1)
- Booker (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Constitutional (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Constitutional inteerpretation (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Crawford (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Decision rules (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Due process (1)
- Election law (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Executive power (1)
- Externality (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Formalism (1)
- Gerrymandering (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Immunity (1)
- Insurance (1)
- Interpertation (1)
- Legal history (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Federalism And Antitrust Reform, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
Federalism And Antitrust Reform, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
All Faculty Scholarship
Currently the Antitrust Modernization Commission is considering numerous proposals for adjusting the relationship between federal antitrust authority and state regulation. This essay examines two areas that have produced a significant amount of state-federal conflict: state regulation of insurance and the state action immunity for general state regulation. It argues that no principle of efficiency, regulatory theory, or federalism justifies the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which creates an antitrust immunity for state regulation of insurance. What few benefits the Act confers could be fully realized by an appropriate interpretation of the state action doctrine. Second, the current formulation of the antitrust state action …
Constitutional Calcification: How The Law Becomes What The Court Does, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Constitutional Calcification: How The Law Becomes What The Court Does, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Guantanamo And The Conflict Of Laws: Rasul And Beyond, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Guantanamo And The Conflict Of Laws: Rasul And Beyond, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Unitary Executive In The Modern Era, 1945–2004, Christopher S. Yoo, Steven G. Calabresi, Anthony J. Colangelo
The Unitary Executive In The Modern Era, 1945–2004, Christopher S. Yoo, Steven G. Calabresi, Anthony J. Colangelo
All Faculty Scholarship
Since the impeachment of President Clinton, there has been renewed debate over whether Congress can create institutions such as special counsels and independent agencies that restrict the president's control over the administration of the law. Initially, debate centered on whether the Constitution rejected the "executive by committee" used by the Articles of Confederation in favor of a "unitary executive," in which all administrative authority is centralized in the president. More recently, the debate has focused on historical practices. Some scholars suggest that independent agencies and special counsels are such established features of the constitutional landscape that any argument in favor …
Running In Place: The Paradox Of Expanding Rights And Restricted Remedies, David Rudovsky
Running In Place: The Paradox Of Expanding Rights And Restricted Remedies, David Rudovsky
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
"Sovereignty" Issues And The Church Bankruptcy Cases, David A. Skeel Jr.
"Sovereignty" Issues And The Church Bankruptcy Cases, David A. Skeel Jr.
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Torture Lite, Full-Bodied Torture, And The Insulation Of Legal Conscience, Seth F. Kreimer
Torture Lite, Full-Bodied Torture, And The Insulation Of Legal Conscience, Seth F. Kreimer
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Resolving Renvoi: The Bewitchment Of Our Intelligence By Means Of Language, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Resolving Renvoi: The Bewitchment Of Our Intelligence By Means Of Language, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Originalism And Formalism In Criminal Procedure: The Triumph Of Justice Scalia, The Unlikely Friend Of Criminal Defendants?, Stephanos Bibas
Originalism And Formalism In Criminal Procedure: The Triumph Of Justice Scalia, The Unlikely Friend Of Criminal Defendants?, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
In Crawford v. Washington, Justice Scalia's majority opinion reinterpreted the Confrontation Clause to exclude otherwise reliable testimonial hearsay unless the defendant has been able to cross-examine it. In Blakely v. Washington, Justice Scalia's majority opinion required that juries, not judges, find beyond a reasonable doubt all facts that trigger sentences above ordinary sentencing-guidelines ranges. Crawford and Blakely are prime case studies in the strengths, weaknesses, and influence of originalism and formalism in criminal procedure. Crawford succeeded because it cleared away muddled case law, laid a strong foundation in the historical record, and erected a simple, solid, workable rule. …
Architectural Censorship And The Fcc, Christopher S. Yoo
Architectural Censorship And The Fcc, Christopher S. Yoo
All Faculty Scholarship
Most First Amendment analyses of U.S. media policy have focused predominantly on “behavioral” regulation, which either prohibits the transmission of disfavored content (such as indecent programming) or mandates the dissemination of preferred content (such as children’s educational programming and political speech). In so doing, commentators have largely overlooked how program content is also affected by “structural” regulation, which focuses primarily on increasing the economic competitiveness of media industries. In this Article, Professor Christopher Yoo employs economic analysis to demonstrate how structural regulation can constitute a form of “architectural censorship” that has the unintended consequence of reducing the quantity, quality, and …
Managing Gerrymandering, Mitchell N. Berman
Managing Gerrymandering, Mitchell N. Berman
All Faculty Scholarship
Last spring, in Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering for the first time since having held such claims justiciable, 18 years earlier, in Davis v. Bandemer. Vieth was a fractured decision. All nine Justices agreed that partisan gerrymandering is of constitutional moment, a substantial majority declaring that excessive partisanship is unconstitutional. The Justices also united in rejecting the particular gerrymandering test advanced in Bandemer. There agreement ended. Four Justices proposed three tests to replace the unmeetable Bandemer standard. A four-member plurality would have overruled Bandemer more completely by holding that partisan gerrymandering claims …
Justice Scalia's Constitution--And Ours, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Justice Scalia's Constitution--And Ours, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.