Digital Commons Network^™

Does Due Process Have An Original Meaning? On Originalism, Due Process, Procedural Innovation . . . And Parking Tickets, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Originalism – the view that constitutional provisions should be interpreted as they were “understood at the time of the law’s enactment” – is the ascendant method of constitutional interpretation. In particular, originalists argue that the Constitution's open-ended provisions should be interpreted in light of their generally understood legal meaning at the time of their framing. An originalist view of due process -- entitling civil and criminal defendants to those procedures considered "due" at the time of framing -- would accordingly condemn any number of innovations in criminal and civil procedures' that alter framing-era procedural rights, such as the novel systems …

Dwi And Drugs: A Look At Per Se Laws For Marijuana, Charles R. Cordova, Jr.

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

How Do We Deal With This Mess? A Primer For State And Local Governments On Navigating The Legal Complexities Of Debris Issues Following Mass Disasters, Ryan M. Seidemann, Megan K. Terrell, Christopher D. Matchett

ExpressO

The devastation wrought by the 2005 hurricane season brought into bold relief the need for comprehensive debris management plans in the United States. As cleanup efforts commenced following Hurricane Katrina, it became abundantly apparent that the local governments were not prepared to deal with the massive scope of the debris problem.

Disasters will occur. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when. The entire nation is at risk of being struck by some type of disaster at some time. The best way to deal with the outfall from these disasters is to be prepared for them …

Toward A Limited-Government Theory Of Extraterritorial Detention, Robert Knowles, Marc D. Falkoff

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Process Due Indefinitely Detained Citizens, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

A very controversial feature of the "war on terror" is the scope of the power which Congress has granted President George W. Bush to designate suspected terrorists enemy combatants and indefinitely detain them. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has most fully, if not clearly, resolved this question.

The United States incarcerated two citizens with little process for more than a year in the Charleston and Norfolk naval brigs. The first litigated three habeas corpus petitions before the Fourth Circuit and a fourth to the Supreme Court before the government released him. The second convinced a …

Ingenious Arguments Or A Serious Constitutional Problem? A Comment On Professor Epstein's Paper, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

In his observations about IRBs, Professor Richard Epstein makes persuasive arguments about the dangerous reach of the IRB laws, but he prefaces this policy analysis with a brief excursus into constitutional law that requires some comment. His view is that the constitutional debate over IRBs arises not so much from a substantial constitutional problem as from “ingenious arguments.” Yet this conclusion rests on mistaken assumptions – both about the IRB laws and about the constitutional objections – and because so much is at stake in the constitutional question, it is necessary to point out the inaccuracies.

The first set of …

On The Fortieth Anniversary Of The Miranda Case: Why We Needed It, How We Got It--And What Happened To It, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Last year (the year I gave the talk on which this article is based) marked the fortieth anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona,' one of the most praised, most maligned-and probably one of the most misunderstood-Supreme Court cases in American history. It is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Miranda without looking back at the test for the admissibility of confessions that preceded it.

Holmes V. South Carolina Upholds Trial By Jury, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

Bobby Lee Holmes was convicted of a brutal rape-murder and sentenced to death. The only evidence that connected him to the crime was forensic: a palm print, and blood and fiber evidence. (Biological samples taken from the victim for two rape kits were compromised and yielded no identifiable evidence.) Holmes claimed that the state's forensic evidence was planted and mishandled, and that the rape and murder were committed by another man, Jimmy McCaw White. At a pretrial hearing three witnesses testified that they saw White near the victim's house at about the time of the crime, and four others testified …

The Best Defense: Why Elected Courts Should Lead Recusal Reform, Deborah Goldberg, James J. Sample, David Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, we have seen an escalation of attacks on the independence of the judiciary. Government officials and citizens who have been upset by the substance of judicial decisions are increasingly seeking to rein in the courts by limiting their jurisdiction over controversial matters, soliciting pre-election commitments from judicial candidates, and drafting ballot initiatives with sanctions for judges who make unpopular rulings. Many of these efforts betray ignorance at best, or defiance at worst, of traditional principles of separation of powers and constitutional protections against tyranny of the majority.

The attacks are fueled in part by the growing influence …