Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Why A Wealth Tax Is Definitely Constitutional, John R. Brooks, David Gamage
Why A Wealth Tax Is Definitely Constitutional, John R. Brooks, David Gamage
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Wealth tax reform proposals are playing a major role in the 2020 presidential campaign. However, some opponents of these wealth tax reform proposals have claimed that a wealth tax would be unconstitutional. Other prominent critics have argued that wealth tax reforms are probably unconstitutional, so that, after review by the courts, the “likeliest outcome is that a wealth tax will raise exactly zero dollars.”
These claims are wrong. More precisely, these claims are wrong conditioned on wealth tax legislation being carefully drafted so as to ensure its constitutionality. As we will explain in this essay, properly drafted, wealth tax reform …
Rucho Is Right – But For The Wrong Reasons, Louis Michael Seidman
Rucho Is Right – But For The Wrong Reasons, Louis Michael Seidman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court ended its long struggle to formulate constitutional standards to regulate political gerrymandering by declaring that it was not up to the job. The Court held that it could come up with no manageable standards governing the controversy and that it therefore posed a nonjusticiable political question.
In this brief comment, I attempt defend this outcome. The task is not easy, and I hope that the reader will at least give me some points for degree of difficulty. There is no denying that partisan gerrymandering is a very serious evil and there …
The Ratchet Wreck: Equality’S Leveling Down Problem, Louis Michael Seidman
The Ratchet Wreck: Equality’S Leveling Down Problem, Louis Michael Seidman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Constitutional equality law has a two-way ratchet problem. When someone demonstrates that a government policy treats her unequally, the injury can be remedied by improving things for the claimant, but it can also be remedied by leaving the claimant’s status unchanged while making things worse for the people advantaged by the policy. If a court chooses the latter option, it diminishes the welfare of some people while arguably not improving welfare of anyone else. Why is that a good idea?
Courts have often attempted to avoid hard questions like these by leveling up – that is by allowing advantaged persons …