Digital Commons Network^™

The Uniform Commercial Code Meets The Seventh Amendment: The Demise Of Jury Trials Under Article 5?, Margaret L. Moses

Margaret L. Moses

No abstract provided.

Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Constitution’ In The Federalist Papers: Semantic Values Surveyed, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

The eighty-five Federal Papers (authors James Madison and Alexander Hamilton; John Jay contributed five) are justifiably famous as elaborations of constitutional structure and text, sans citation to the convention, understandably, since secrecy imposed by Standing Order on May 28th was continued indefinitely (at the pleasure/non-action of Congress) on September 17th. Counts on semantic value/s of ‘constitution’ and ‘constitutional’ are surveyed.

United States V. Klein, Then And Now, Gordon G. Young

Gordon G. Young

United States v. Klein, decided during Reconstruction, was the first Supreme Court case to invalidate a statutory restriction on federal courts’ jurisdiction. It is the only one to do so by finding a violation of Article III of the Constitution. Klein has been cited in thirty-three United States Supreme Court opinions, and roughly five hundred times each by lower federal courts and law journal articles. Recent commentators have read Klein both too broadly and narrowly. Its central holding is that Congress may not grant federal courts jurisdiction to decide a set of cases on the merits while depriving them …

Subtraction By Addition?: The Thirteenth And Fourteenth Amendments, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

The celebration of the Thirteenth Amendment in many Essays prepared for this Symposium may be premature. That the Thirteenth Amendment arguably protects a different and, perhaps, wider array of rights than the Fourteenth Amendment may be less important than the less controversial claim that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the Thirteenth Amendment. If the Fourteenth Amendment covers similar ground as the Thirteenth Amendment, but protects a narrower set of rights than the Thirteenth Amendment, then the proper inference may be that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or modified crucial rights originally protected by the Thirteenth Amendment. The broad interpretation of …

Hollow Hopes And Exaggerated Fears: The Canon/Anticanon In Context, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

Students of American constitutionalism should add constitutional decisions made by elected officials to the constitutional canon and the constitutional anticanon. Neither the canonical nor the anticanonical constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court have produced the wonderful results or horrible evils sometimes attributed to them. In many cases, elected officials made contemporaneous constitutional decisions that had as much influence as the celebrated or condemned judicial rulings. More often than not, judicial rulings matter more as a result of changing the political dynamics than by directly changing public policy. Law students and others interested in constitutional change, for these reasons, need to …

Plus Or Minus One: The Thirteenth And Fourteenth Amendments, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

The consensus that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Thirteenth Amendment has come under sharp criticism in recent years. Several new works suggest that the Thirteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, protects some substantive rights not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Some of this scholarship is undoubtedly motivated by an effort to avoid hostile Supreme Court precedents. Nevertheless, more seems to be going on than mere litigation strategy. Scholars detected different rights and regime principles in the Thirteenth Amendment than they find in the Fourteenth Amendment. The 2011 Maryland Constitutional Law Schoomze, to which this is an introduction, provided an opportunity for law …

The Founders’ Hermeneutic: The Real Original Understanding Of Original Intent, Robert G. Natelson

Robert G. Natelson

This Article addresses whether the American Founders expected evidence of their own subjective views to guide future interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The Article considers a range of evidence largely overlooked or misunderstood in earlier studies, such as contemporaneous rules of legal interpretation, judicial use of legislative history, early American public debate, and pronouncements by state ratifying conventions. Based on this evidence, the Article concludes that the Founders were “original-understanding originalists.” This means that they anticipated that constitutional interpretation would be guided by the subjective understanding of the ratifiers when such understanding was coherent and recoverable and, otherwise, by the …

A Republic, Not A Democracy? Initiative, Referendum, And The Constitution's Guarantee Clause, Robert G. Natelson

Robert G. Natelson

This article debunks the myth, first arising in the 1840s, that the Founders sharply distinguished between a "republic" and a "democracy." It explains that by a "republic," most of the Founders meant a government controlled by the citizenry, following the rule of law, and without a king. Accordingly, state provisions for initiative and referendum are fully consistent with the Constitution's requirement that each state have a republican form of government; in fact, most of the governments the Founders called "republics" had featured analogous forms of direct democracy.

Paper Money And The Original Understanding Of The Coinage Clause, Robert G. Natelson

Robert G. Natelson

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court decided the Legal Tender Cases, holding that Congress could authorize legal tender paper money in addition to metallic coin. In recent years, some commentators have argued that this holding was incorrect as a matter of original understanding or original meaning, but that any other holding would be absolutely inconsistent with modern needs. They further argue that the impracticality of functioning without paper money demonstrates that originalism is not a workable method of constitutional interpretation. Those who rely on the Legal Tender Cases to discredit originalism are, however, in error. This Article shows that …

Clinton, Campaigns, And Corporate Expenditures: The Supreme Court's Recent Decision In Citizen's United And Its Impact On Corporate Political Influence, Glen M. Vogel

Glen M Vogel

The public’s ability to discuss and debate the character and fitness of presidential candidates is at the core of the First Amendment’s prohibition that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the Freedom of Speech.” Despite the existence of this fundamental right, articulated so eloquently in our founding document, in November of 2002, Congress made political speech a felony for one class of speakers – corporations and unions. Under the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law, corporations and unions were prohibited from spending their own funds in support of or against a candidate for political office. Violators of this ban faced up …

Constructing The Other: U.S. Muslims, Proposed Anti-Sharia Law, And The Constitutional Consequences Of Volatile Intercultural Rhetoric, Carlo A. Pedrioli

Carlo A. Pedrioli

Recently, legislators have proposed, discussed, and passed various laws that aimed to limit the use of foreign law, international law, and Sharia (a branch of Islamic law) in state court systems. Because it became law, one proposed state constitutional amendment that rhetorically linked Sharia to foreign and international law is of particular note. In the 2010 midterm elections, Oklahoma passed State Question 755 (SQ 755), a constitutional amendment that aimed to place restrictions on the use of foreign law, international law, and Sharia in Oklahoma courts.

Laws like Oklahoma’s State Question 755 are problematic for a variety of reasons. One …

The Future Interpretation Of The Constitution As A Result Of The Reelection Of President Barack Obama, Wilson Huhn

Wilson R. Huhn

On November 6, 2012, Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States. What effect will this have on the future interpretation of the Constitution? This article identifies 19 areas of constitutional law that would likely change if one more liberal justice is appointed to the Supreme Court.

The Long And Winding Road From Monroe To Connick, Sheldon Nahmod

Sheldon Nahmod

In this article, I address the historical and doctrinal development of § 1983 local government liability, beginning with Monroe v. Pape in 1961 and culminating in the Supreme Court’s controversial 2011 failure to train decision in Connick v. Thompson. Connick has made it exceptionally difficult for § 1983 plaintiffs to prevail against local governments in failure to train cases. In the course of my analysis, I also consider the oral argument and opinions in Connick as well as various aspects of § 1983 doctrine. I ultimately situate Connick in the Court’s federalism jurisprudence which doubles back to Justice Frankfurter’s view …

Judicial Review And Originalism: Do We Really Want A "Dead" Constitution, Albert E. Poirier Jr.

Albert E Poirier Jr.