Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 30 of 30

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Hardball Vs. Beanball: Identifying Fundamentally Antidemocratic Tactics, Jed Shugerman Jan 2019

Hardball Vs. Beanball: Identifying Fundamentally Antidemocratic Tactics, Jed Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The “constitutional hardball” metaphor used by legal scholars and political scientists illuminates an important phenomenon in American politics, but it obscures a crisis in American democracy. In baseball, hardball encompasses legitimate tactics: pitching inside to brush a batter back but not injure, hard slides, hard tags. Baseball fans celebrate hardball. Many of the constitutional hardball maneuvers previously identified by scholars have been legitimate, if aggressive, constitutional political moves. But the label “hardball” has been interpreted too broadly to include illegitimate, fundamentally undemocratic tactics. I suggest a different baseball metaphor for such tactics: beanball, pitches meant to injure and knock out ...


Deconstitutionalizing Dewey, Aaron J. Saiger Jan 2019

Deconstitutionalizing Dewey, Aaron J. Saiger

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Historians And The New Originalism: Contextualism, Historicism, And Constitutional Meaning, Martin S. Flaherty Dec 2015

Historians And The New Originalism: Contextualism, Historicism, And Constitutional Meaning, Martin S. Flaherty

Fordham Law Review

Toward that end, this Foreword addresses three matters. First, it considers why the use of history in constitutional interpretation is inescapable. Next, it suggests that the Essays in this forum do not go far enough in debunking the idea of “public meaning” originalism as a serious alternative to previous approaches. Finally, the balance of this Foreword reviews the also perhaps inescapable misuses of history that constitutional interpretation invites and considers the type of misuse that public meaning originalism represents.


“To Assemble Together For Their Common Good”: History, Ethnography, And The Original Meanings Of The Rights Of Assembly And Speech, Saul Cornell Dec 2015

“To Assemble Together For Their Common Good”: History, Ethnography, And The Original Meanings Of The Rights Of Assembly And Speech, Saul Cornell

Fordham Law Review

The Whiskey Rebellion is not generally a major focus in constitutional histories or casebooks. Given this fact, it is hardly surprising that the 1795 case Respublica v. Montgomery seldom figures as more than a minor footnote in scholarly writing about early American constitutional development, if it receives any attention at all. The case has little precedential value for modern First Amendment doctrine and only obliquely implicates larger jurisprudential questions about the rights of assembly and freedom of expression. In strictly doctrinal terms, Montgomery is primarily about the obligation of a justice of the peace to put down a riot, not ...


Outsourcing The Law: History And The Disciplinary Limits Of Constitutional Reasoning, Helen Irving Dec 2015

Outsourcing The Law: History And The Disciplinary Limits Of Constitutional Reasoning, Helen Irving

Fordham Law Review

Debates about the use of history in constitutional interpretation find their primary nourishment in the originalism debate. This has generated a vast amount of literature, but also narrowed the terms of the debate. Originalism is a normative commitment wrapped in a questionable methodological confidence. Regardless of the multiple forms originalism takes, originalists are confident that the meaning (in the sense of intention) that animated the framing of the Constitution can be ascertained and, indeed, that they can ascertain it. The debate has largely focused, then, on whether modern-day scholars and jurists can ascertain original historical meaning or, alternatively, whether they ...


Historicism And Holism: Failures Of Originalist Translation, Jonathan Gienapp Dec 2015

Historicism And Holism: Failures Of Originalist Translation, Jonathan Gienapp

Fordham Law Review

For as long as the U.S. Constitution has existed, Americans have appealed to the history of its creation to interpret its meaning. But only since the advent of originalism—the well-known constitutional theory that requires interpreting the Constitution today in accordance with its original meaning—has historical study been so immediately implicated by constitutional interpretation. Despite potential, though, for meaningful exchange between originalists and historians, little has taken place. That originalism plays an ever-growing role in contemporary political culture only makes the lack of dialogue all the more unfortunate.


Tone Deaf To The Past: More Qualms About Public Meaning Originalism, Jack Rakove Dec 2015

Tone Deaf To The Past: More Qualms About Public Meaning Originalism, Jack Rakove

Fordham Law Review

With some apologies for a vast degree of oversimplification, let us stipulate that there are two main forms of originalism. One is known as “semantic” or “public meaning” originalism. Its leading advocates include Lawrence Solum, Keith Whittington, and Randy Barnett (professional friends, all). The leading premise of semantic originalism is that the meaning of the constitutional text—or, more specifically, of its individual clauses—was fixed at the moment of its adoption. Under this view, the goal of constitutional interpretation is to recover that original meaning, and the best way to do that pivots on reconstructing how an informed reader ...


Originalism As Thin Description: An Interdisciplinary Critique, Saul Cornell Jul 2015

Originalism As Thin Description: An Interdisciplinary Critique, Saul Cornell

Res Gestae

My essay was intended as a critique of originalism from the perspective of intellectual history. I pointed out that originalism lacked a rigorous empirical method for analyzing what texts meant in the past. I suppose in some sense it is flattering that Solum has devoted much of his recent article to an attack on my earlier essay. Of course, flattery aside, it would have been more useful if Solum had stated my thesis correctly. For purposes of clarity, I have juxtaposed Solum’s description of my argument with what my essay actually said. Readers will be able to judge for ...


The Problem Of Presidential Inability—Will Congress Ever Solve It?, John D. Feerick May 2015

The Problem Of Presidential Inability—Will Congress Ever Solve It?, John D. Feerick

Fordham Law Review

One of the most critical and intriguing constitutional questions ever presented for solution is: What happens when the President of the United States becomes incapable of discharging the powers and duties of his office? Does the Vice-President "become President" for the remainder of the term or does he merely "act as President" during the period of the inability? The Constitution is not explicit..


Statutory Restrictions On Concealed Carry: A Five-Circuit Shoot Out, Justine E. Johnson-Makuch Apr 2015

Statutory Restrictions On Concealed Carry: A Five-Circuit Shoot Out, Justine E. Johnson-Makuch

Fordham Law Review

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified a citizen’s core Second Amendment right to keep a firearm at home; however, the Court left open the question of how the Second Amendment applies beyond the home. Since Heller, lower courts have struggled to determine the constitutionality of concealed carry laws in light of this new understanding of the Second Amendment.

Many states have enacted laws that restrict a citizen’s ability to obtain a concealed carry permit, and some of the restrictions are not controversial, such as the requirements to be above a certain age ...


State (Un)Separated Powers And Commandeering, Aaron P. Brecher Jan 2015

State (Un)Separated Powers And Commandeering, Aaron P. Brecher

Res Gestae

This Essay argues that the Court’s line between state judges and other state officials is not as clean as the case law suggests. Specifically, early state constitutions, as well as the British constitutional order prevailing before the U.S. Constitution was enacted—which did not separate powers as rigidly as the U.S. Constitution—combine to undermine the distinction. Taking this line of analysis seriously is not to deny that commandeering state executive or legislative officials raises federalism concerns. But paying more careful attention to early state conceptions of the separation of powers furthers federalist goals in another way ...


Religion And Theistic Faith: On Koppelman, Leiter, Secular Purpose, And Accomodations, Abner S. Greene Jan 2013

Religion And Theistic Faith: On Koppelman, Leiter, Secular Purpose, And Accomodations, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

What makes religion distinctive, and how does answering that question help us answer questions regarding religious freedom in a liberal democracy? In their books on religion in the United States under our Constitution, Andrew Koppelman (DefendingAmerican Religious Neutrality) and Brian Leiter (Why Tolerate Religion?) offer sharply different answers to this set of questions. This review essay first explores why we might treat religion distinctively, suggesting that in our constitutional order, it makes sense to focus on theism (or any roughly similar analogue) as the hallmark of religious belief and practice. Neither Koppelman nor Leiter focuses on this, in part because ...


Habeas Corpus, Protection, And Extraterritorial Constitutional Rights, Andrew Kent Jan 2012

Habeas Corpus, Protection, And Extraterritorial Constitutional Rights, Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

This short essay is an exchange with Professor Steve Vladeck's about my Article entitled: Boumediene, Munaf, and the Supreme Court’s Misreading of the Insular Cases, 97 Iowa Law Review 101 (2011). My Article showed that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Boumediene v. Bush relied on a demonstrably incorrect understanding of key precedents known as the Insular Cases, which arose from actions of the United States military and the new civil governments of the islands acquired by the United States at the turn of the twentieth century — Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii, and for a time Cuba ...


Gallenthin V. Kaur: A Comparative Analysis Of How The New Jersey And New York Courts Approach Judicial Review Of The Exercise Of Eminent Domain For Redevelopment, Ronald K. Chen Jan 2011

Gallenthin V. Kaur: A Comparative Analysis Of How The New Jersey And New York Courts Approach Judicial Review Of The Exercise Of Eminent Domain For Redevelopment, Ronald K. Chen

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article explores two explanations for why New Jersey and New York take different approaches to judicial review of exercises of eminent domain. Part I examines the approach of both states and their differing procedures for review of administrative agency determinations. Part II discusses how each states' courts and legislatures define "blight." Part III examines how New York's approach leaves municipal officials and redevelopers free to use the more flexible concept of "underutilization" as a proxy for "blight."


Boumediene, Munaf, And The Supreme Court's Misreading Of The Insular Cases , Andrew Kent Jan 2011

Boumediene, Munaf, And The Supreme Court's Misreading Of The Insular Cases , Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

In 2008, the Supreme Court embraced both global constitutionalism - the view that the Constitution provides judicially enforceable rights to non-citizens outside the sovereign territory of the United States - and what I call human-rights universalism - the view that the Constitution protects military enemies during armed conflict. Boumediene v. Bush found a constitutional right to habeas corpus for non-citizens detained as enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba, while Munaf v. Geren - decided the same day as Boumediene and involving U.S. citizens detained in Iraq during the war there - hinted that the Due Process Clause might be a ...


Constitution And The Laws Of War During The Civil War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure, Andrew Kent Jan 2009

Constitution And The Laws Of War During The Civil War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure, Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

This Article uncovers the forgotten complex of relationships between the U.S. Constitution, citizenship and the laws of war. The Supreme Court today believes that both noncitizens and citizens who are military enemies in a congressionally-authorized war are entitled to judicially-enforceable rights under the Constitution. The older view was that the U.S. government’s military actions against noncitizen enemies were not limited by the Constitution, but only by the international laws of war. On the other hand, in the antebellum period, the prevailing view was U.S. citizenship should carry with it protection from ever being treated as a ...


Civil War In The U.S. Foreign Relations Law: A Dress Rehearsal For Modern Transformations, The The Use And Misuse Of History In U.S. Foreign Relations Law, Thomas H. Lee Jan 2008

Civil War In The U.S. Foreign Relations Law: A Dress Rehearsal For Modern Transformations, The The Use And Misuse Of History In U.S. Foreign Relations Law, Thomas H. Lee

Faculty Scholarship

The first of the four U.S. foreign relations law insights of the Prize Cases that this Article will discuss is the notion that international law provides a basis for the President's exercise of military force in a manner neither specifically enumerated in the Constitution nor preauthorized by congressional enactments. The specific military action was the proclamation of a naval blockade that applied not only to active Confederate belligerents but also to loyal U.S. citizens residing in seceding or soon-to-secede states and to foreign neutral citizens. The second insight is the notion that federal constitutional law protections for ...


Why Supermajoritarianism Does Not Illuminate The Interpretive Debate Between Originalists And Non-Originalists, Ethan J. Leib Jan 2007

Why Supermajoritarianism Does Not Illuminate The Interpretive Debate Between Originalists And Non-Originalists, Ethan J. Leib

Faculty Scholarship

In A Pragmatic Defense of Originalism, they seek to explain why supermajoritarianism furnishes a new pragmatic defense of originalism. In this Essay, I dispute each of their substantive claims. First, I argue that there is nothing newly pragmatic about their defense. Although they claim to want to make originalists and pragmatists friends, nothing about their project is likely to accomplish this matchmaking. Second, I argue that there is no reason to believe that constitutional entrenchments produced under supermajoritarian decision rules are any more desirable as a general matter than rules produced under other, more relaxed, decision rules. At the core ...


Supreme Court Of The United States As Quasi-International Tribunal: Reclaiming The Court's Original And Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Treaty-Based Suits By Foreign States Against States, The, Thomas H. Lee Jan 2004

Supreme Court Of The United States As Quasi-International Tribunal: Reclaiming The Court's Original And Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Treaty-Based Suits By Foreign States Against States, The, Thomas H. Lee

Faculty Scholarship

The thesis of this Article is that the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over suits brought by foreign states against States alleging violation of ratified treaties of the United States. The basis for non-immunity in suits by foreign states is the same theory of ratification consent that is presumed to justify suits against States by other States or the United States. Just as the States by ratifying the Constitution agreed to suits in the national court by other States and the national sovereign to ensure domestic peace, they agreed to suits by foreign states in ...


Redeeming The Welshed Guarantee: A Scheme For Achieving Justiciability, Ethan J. Leib Jan 2002

Redeeming The Welshed Guarantee: A Scheme For Achieving Justiciability, Ethan J. Leib

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, I suggest that Congress re-pass its progressive legislation under the jurisdictional basis of its Guarantee Clause power. While arguments for justiciability continue to be made, a pragmatic way to achieve it has not been spelled out. Part II will lay out versions of republicanism I hope to see discussed in the context of the Guarantee Clause. Part III will explore republicanism's excessive attention on the courts, recommending the aforementioned approach of Jeremy Waldron. Part IV will briefly suggest how some of the legislation recently curtailed by the Supreme Court might be justified under a theory of ...


Trying To Fit An Oval Shaped Island Into A Square Constitution: Arguments For Puerto Rican Statehood, Jose D. Roman Jan 2002

Trying To Fit An Oval Shaped Island Into A Square Constitution: Arguments For Puerto Rican Statehood, Jose D. Roman

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Comment focuses on the limits placed on Puerto Rico under the United States Constitution and concludes that Puerto Rico must become the 51st state to improve its status under the Constitution. It explores Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States and its unusual position under the Constitution. This Comment then examines the voting rights issues facing Puerto Ricans, including a First Circuit case which denied Puerto Ricans the right to vote in presidential elections. The Comment concludes that this case was correctly decided and the Supreme Court, in other decisions, has only recognized a limited right to vote ...


September 11, 2001: The Constitution During Crisis: A New Perspective, Lori Sachs Jan 2002

September 11, 2001: The Constitution During Crisis: A New Perspective, Lori Sachs

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Comment examines how the United States should react to the threat of domestic terrorism while maintaining citizens' civil liberties in the wake of the events on September 11, 2001. The Comment first compares and contrasts three classic theories of democracy: constitutional democracy, representative democracy and deliberative democracy. It next describes how representative and constitutional democracy were applied during the Japanese internment during World War II. Part III compares the Japanese internment to the challenges after the September 11 attacks and analyzes the roles different branches should have in protecting civil liberties. Finally, the Comment recommends applying a theory of ...


Making Sense Of The Eleventh Amendment: International Law And State Sovereignty, Thomas H. Lee Jan 2001

Making Sense Of The Eleventh Amendment: International Law And State Sovereignty, Thomas H. Lee

Faculty Scholarship

The Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. - Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America The thesis of this article is that the Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1798, represented the incorporation into the American domestic constitutional law of federalism (specifically, the doctrine of state sovereign immunity) the late eighteenth-century international law rule that only states have rights against other states on ...


Defining And Punishing Abroad: Constitutional Limits On The Extraterritorial Reach Of The Offenses Clause Note, Zephyr Teachout Jan 1998

Defining And Punishing Abroad: Constitutional Limits On The Extraterritorial Reach Of The Offenses Clause Note, Zephyr Teachout

Faculty Scholarship

The Offenses Clause of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to "define and punish... Offences against the Law of Nations." This Note considers whether Congress must conform to the jurisdictional rules of customary international law when legislating pursuant to the Offenses Clause.


Tragic Irony Of American Federalism: National Sovereignty Versus State Sovereignty In Slavery And In Freedom, The Federalism In The 21st Century: Historical Perspectives, Robert J. Kaczorowski Jan 1996

Tragic Irony Of American Federalism: National Sovereignty Versus State Sovereignty In Slavery And In Freedom, The Federalism In The 21st Century: Historical Perspectives, Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

A plurality on the Supreme Court seeks to establish a state-sovereignty based theory of federalism that imposes sharp limitations on Congress's legislative powers. Using history as authority, they admonish a return to the constitutional "first principles" of the Founders. These "first principles," in their view, attribute all governmental authority to "the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole." Because the people of each state are the source of all governmental power, they maintain, "where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power-that ...


Reflections On From Slaves To Citizens Bondage, Freedom And The Constitution: The New Slavery Scholarship And Its Impact On Law And Legal Historiography, Robert J. Kaczorowski Jan 1995

Reflections On From Slaves To Citizens Bondage, Freedom And The Constitution: The New Slavery Scholarship And Its Impact On Law And Legal Historiography, Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

The thesis of Professor Donald Nieman's paper, "From Slaves to Citizens: African-Americans, Rights Consciousness, and Reconstruction," is that the nation experienced a revolution in the United States Constitution and in the consciousness of African Americans. According to Professor Nieman, the Reconstruction Amendments represented "a dramatic departure from antebellum constitutional principles,"' because the Thirteenth Amendment reversed the pre-Civil War constitutional guarantee of slavery and "abolish[ed] slavery by federal authority." The Fourteenth Amendment rejected the Supreme Court's "racially-based definition of citizenship [in Dred Scott v. Sandford4], clearly establishing a color-blind citizenship” and the Fifteenth Amendment "wrote the principle of ...


Reconstructing The Takings Doctrine By Redefining Property And Sovereignty, John Martinez Jan 1988

Reconstructing The Takings Doctrine By Redefining Property And Sovereignty, John Martinez

Fordham Urban Law Journal

In 1987, the Supreme Court decided three cases involving "takings" challenges to governmental exercise of the power to control land use. This trilogy of cases affirmed the continuing validity of a three-part analytical model in addressing the takings problem: (1) is private property involved; (2) has governmental action so affected it as to require a remedy; and (3) what remedy should be provided? This Article critically examines that model and argues that the first two questions are fundamentally indistinguishable and that to treat them as distinct inquiries is unworkable. The Article then proposes a functional approach under which individuals are ...


Revolutionary Constitutionalism In The Era Of The Civil War And Reconstruction , Robert J. Kaczorowski Jan 1986

Revolutionary Constitutionalism In The Era Of The Civil War And Reconstruction , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

The meaning and scope of the fourteenth amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 remain among the most controversial issues in American constitutional law. Professor Kaczorowski contends that the issues have generated more controversy than they warrant, in part because scholars analyzing the legislative history of the amendment and statute have approached their task with preconceptions reflecting twentieth century legal concerns. He argues that the most important question for the framers was whether national or state governments possessed primary authority to determine and secure the status and rights of American citizens. Relying on records of the congressional debates as ...


Should The Capital Vote In Congress? A Critical Analysis Of The Proposed D.C. Representation Amendment , U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch Jan 1978

Should The Capital Vote In Congress? A Critical Analysis Of The Proposed D.C. Representation Amendment , U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This article describes H.J. Res. 554, the proposed Amendment to obtain voting representation for D.C. It gives a historical overview of the District and its efforts to gain national representation, and presents a critical analysis of the case for District representation, including a summary of the arguments made in favor of the proposed amendment, as well as the constitutional and policy objections to the D.C. Amendment. The article concludes that proponents of the amendment conflate representation of the citizens of the District with representation of the District, and overlook its place as a neutral seat of government.


Towards A Constitutional Right To Counsel In Matrimonial Litigation, Gary R. Matano Jan 1976

Towards A Constitutional Right To Counsel In Matrimonial Litigation, Gary R. Matano

Fordham Urban Law Journal

The marriage institution is the basic unit in the anatomical composition of American society as it exists today. The right to marry and the right to divorce when marriage fails have long been held in the highest esteem by our nation's courts. But some citizens of the State of New York are judicially denied the right to terminate their marriages because they are indigents. The court has denied indigents their requested assignments of counsel when the assistance of counsel was unquestionably necessary for prospective matrimonial litigants. The first problem posed by that holding is that it operates as a ...