Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Unitary Executive, Jurisdiction Stripping, And The Hamdan Opinions: A Textualist Response To Justice Scalia, Steven G. Calabresi, Gary S. Lawson
The Unitary Executive, Jurisdiction Stripping, And The Hamdan Opinions: A Textualist Response To Justice Scalia, Steven G. Calabresi, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a five to three majority of the United States Supreme Court held unlawful the Bush Administration's use of military commissions to try alien combatant detainees held at the United States airbase in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba-at least until and unless Congress enacted more specific authorization for the composition and procedures of the commissions. 1 There are many features of the Court's opinion that we find questionable: its analysis of the wartime scope of the "executive Power"2 vested in the President by Article II of the Constitution,3 its construction of the statutes that supposedly limit the President's power …
Aedpa's Wrecks: Comity, Finality, And Federalism, Lee B. Kovarsky
Aedpa's Wrecks: Comity, Finality, And Federalism, Lee B. Kovarsky
Faculty Scholarship
Over the last decade, federal courts have internalized the idea that interpretations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) should disfavor habeas relief. This Article explores the strange legislative history surrounding AEDPA's passage and the resulting problems in using 'comity, finality, and federalism' to express this interpretive mood. It demonstrates that such a simplistic reading of habeas reform is deeply misguided. Through the use of public choice and related models, the Article explores the roots of this interpretive problem. It ultimately rejects any attempt to characterize AEDPA by reference to legislative purpose.