Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Juvenile Curfew Ordinances And The Constitution, Michigan Law Review
Juvenile Curfew Ordinances And The Constitution, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Recognizing that a legislature must decide whether to enact a juvenile curfew without the benefit of conclusive data on the effectiveness of such laws, the remainder of this Note will focus primarily upon the constitutional issues raised by such ordinances. The freedom of movement that is limited by a curfew is, it will be argued, an unenumerated right protected by the ninth and fourteenth amendments. The constitutional rights of juveniles, however, -are not necessarily coextensive with those of adults. Certain characteristics of juveniles-in particular, their lesser capacity for reason and self-control-imply that the strength of their right to freedom of …
State Taxation And The Supreme Court: Toward A More Unified Approach To Constitutional Adjudication?, Walter Hellerstein
State Taxation And The Supreme Court: Toward A More Unified Approach To Constitutional Adjudication?, Walter Hellerstein
Michigan Law Review
The first section of this Article examines three recent cases, each addressed to a different constitutional limitation on the scope of state tax power, that may be read as signifying a new approach: Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, which concerned the import-export clause; United States v. County of Fresno, which concerned the supremacy clause; and Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, which concerned the commerce clause. Section II considers the implications of these decisions and explores -the possibility that they share an underlying doctrinal unity.
Congressional Power Under The Appointments Clause After Buckley V. Valeo, Michigan Law Review
Congressional Power Under The Appointments Clause After Buckley V. Valeo, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note examines the constitutional power of Congress to control the selection of government officers. It first discusses the article II grant itself and concludes that the Court in Buckley correctly interpreted that provision to prohibit direct appointment by Congress of officers who are found to possess "significant authority." The Note then explores possible means not explicitly foreclosed in Buckley by which Congress might influence such appointments and argues that these alternatives are restricted by the same constitutional principles that prohibit direct congressional appointments.