Digital Commons Network^™

Pacific Bell V. Linkline: Price Squeezing And The Limits Of Judicial Administrability, Sandeep Vaheesan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Explaining Change And Rethinking Dirty Words: Fcc V. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Tobias Coleman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Justifying Motive Analysis In Judicial Review, Gordon G. Young

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Motives concern us in ordinary life and in the law of torts and crimes, and that concern is justified by consequentialist ethics. Despite occasional judicial protestations, motive analysis pervades large parts of constitutional law. Illegitimate motives aimed at suspect classes, or "designed to strike" at any number of rights identified as fundamental, presumptively invalidate the official actions that they animate. The consequentialist arguments for the use of motive review in this class of cases are relatively simple. Such illegitimate official motives tend to cause bad distributions of tangible benefits and burdens, or cause direct cognitive or emotional harm to the …

False Modesty: Felix Frankfurter And The Tradition Of Judicial Restraint, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

Professor Jeffrey Rosen is the leading champion of judicial modesty among legal academics and public philosophers. Throughout his career, Professor Rosen has vigorously condemned justices “when they have tried to impose intensely contested visions of the Constitution on a divided nation.” This commentary on his Foulston lecture at Washburn Law School suggests that proponents of judicial restraint must avoid traps of false modesty which ensnared Justice Felix Frankfurter. The constitutional politics responsible for Poe v. Ullman and Barnette v. West Virginia State Board of Education challenge the too simple understanding of judicial unilateralism that Frankfurter advanced in his opinions in …

Whither Sexual Orientation Analysis?: The Proper Methodology When Due Process And Equal Protection Intersect, Sharon E. Rush

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article suggests that there is Proper Methodology that courts apply when reviewing cases at the intersection of due process and equal protection. Briefly, courts operate under a rule that heightened review applies if either a fundamental right or a suspect class is involved in a case, and that rational basis review applies if neither is involved (the "Rule"). Two primary exceptions to the Rule exist, and this Article identifies them as the "Logical" and "Ill Motives" Exceptions. The Logical Exception applies when a court need not apply heightened review because a law fails rational basis review. The Ill Motives …

Metaphors And Modalities: Meditations On Bobbitt’S Theory Of The Constitution, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

This article builds on Philip Bobbitt's remarkable work in constitutional theory, which posits a practice-based constitution based in six accepted "modalities" of argument. I attempt to supplement Bobbitt's theory - which has a static and exclusive quality to it - with an account of interpretive evolution based in Max Black's interaction theory of metaphors. I suggest that we can (and do) create constitutional metaphors by deliberately overlapping Bobbitt's modalities of argument, and that through these creative acts we can grow the practice of American constitutionalism. I then present case studies of this metaphoric process at work in three fields of …

Gunneflo - Demokrati Och Lagprövning: Om Rättfärdigandet Av En Positiv Respektive Negativ Inställning Till Lagprövning [Democracy And Judicial Review: On The Justicfication Of A Positive And A Negative Attitude To Judicial Review In A Democracy], Markus Gunneflo

Markus Gunneflo

Can A Legislative Assembly Function Without An Executive Government Under The Indian Constitution?, Shubhankar Dam

Shubhankar Dam

Can the Governor dissolve a Legislative Assembly under the Indian Constitution even before convening its first meeting on the ground that no party had adequate mandate to form the government? That was the question posed before the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prasad. The Court held in the affirmative. For the Court, a Legislative Assembly can be brought into existence only when some members of the Legislature are in a position to form the Executive Government (the Cabinet). This short comment proposes an argument to the contrary. I argue that the Supreme Court's conclusion was made possible by a method of …