Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Arizona V. Johnson: Determining When A Terry Stop Becomes Consensual, Ryan Thompson
Arizona V. Johnson: Determining When A Terry Stop Becomes Consensual, Ryan Thompson
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
No abstract provided.
Pacific Bell V. Linkline: Price Squeezing And The Limits Of Judicial Administrability, Sandeep Vaheesan
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.
Fitzgerald V. Barnstable School Committee: Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights, Sarah Branstetter
Fitzgerald V. Barnstable School Committee: Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights, Sarah Branstetter
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
No abstract provided.
Davis V. Fec: The First Amendment Rights Of A Wealthy Candidate, Jeremy Earl
Davis V. Fec: The First Amendment Rights Of A Wealthy Candidate, Jeremy Earl
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
No abstract provided.
Panetti V. Quarterman: Raising The Bar Against Executing The Incompetent, D. G. Maxted
Panetti V. Quarterman: Raising The Bar Against Executing The Incompetent, D. G. Maxted
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
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.
Pleasant Grove City V. Summum: Identifying Government Speech & Classifying Speech Forums, Aaron Harmon
Pleasant Grove City V. Summum: Identifying Government Speech & Classifying Speech Forums, Aaron Harmon
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Supreme Court must decide whether a privately-donated Ten Commandments monument currently on display in a city park is the private speech of the donor or the government speech of Pleasant Grove City. Summum, a religious organization, sued Pleasant Grove City in federal court claiming that because the city had displayed in a city park a donated Ten Commandments monument, the First Amendment compelled the city to also accept and display Summum's proposed "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument. If the Court decides it is the private speech of the donor, it will have to …
Ksr V. Teleflex: How “Obviousness” Has Changed, Daniel Becker
Ksr V. Teleflex: How “Obviousness” Has Changed, Daniel Becker
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court examined the Federal Circuit's obviousness jurisprudence for patents. Both prior to and in this case, the Federal Circuit rigidly applied its judicially created "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM) test to determine whether the prior art would direct an inventor of ordinary skill in the art to combine references or elements in references in the same way as the patentee did. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision of the Federal Circuit, and held that by applying the TSM test in such a strict manner, the Federal Circuit had "analyzed the issue in a …
Why The Incompatibility Clause Applies To The Office Of The President, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash
Why The Incompatibility Clause Applies To The Office Of The President, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Professor Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash responds to Mr. Seth Barret Tillman's Article and defends the traditional interpretation of the Incompatibility Clause, under which a President is prohibited from simultaneously serving as a congressional representative. The ramifications that would result if a President could also hold a position in the Senate or the House of Representatives, Professor Prakash argues, are too problematic for Mr. Tillman's reading to replace the traditional understanding of the Incompatibility Clause. Therefore, the next President, whether Senator McCain or Senator Obama, would need to resign from the Senate before assuming the Executive Office.
Why Our Next President May Keep His Or Her Senate Seat: A Conjecture On The Constitution’S Incompatibility Clause, Seth Barrett Tillman
Why Our Next President May Keep His Or Her Senate Seat: A Conjecture On The Constitution’S Incompatibility Clause, Seth Barrett Tillman
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In this Article, Mr. Seth Barrett Tillman challenges the traditional interpretation of the Incompatibility Clause and argues that the President may serve both as the Chief Executive and as a member of Congress. Mr. Tillman utilizes the text, history, and structure of the Constitution to support his position. He ultimately concludes that whoever serves as the next President -- Senator Obama or Senator McCain -- need not resign from the Senate before assuming the Executive Office.