Law Commons^™

United States Supreme Court: 2000 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary Theory Of Alternative Dispute Resolution And Public Civil Justice, Richard C. Reuben

Faculty Publications

Under the traditional bipolar model, civil dispute resolution is generally divided into two spheres: trial, which is public in nature and therefore subject to constitutional due process, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is private in nature and therefore not subject to such constraints. In this article, Professor Richard Reuben proposes a unitary understanding of public civil dispute resolution, one that recognizes that ADR is often energized by state action and thus is constitutionally required to comply with minimal but meaningful due process standards. Depending upon the process, such standards might include the right to an impartial forum, the right …

Ninth Amendment Adjudication: An Alternative To Substantive Due Process Analysis Of Personal Autonomy Rights, Mark C. Niles

Faculty Publications

Notwithstanding decades of significant legal scholarship focusing on the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a large portion of the practicing legal community, and even a substantial percentage of legal scholars, are unfamiliar with the provision. The primary reason for this phenomenon is the striking absence of an identifiable body of Ninth Amendment adjudication. In this Article, Mark Niles focuses on this phenomenon and endeavors to develop an interpretative theory of the amendment upon which an adjudicative role can be founded.

In Part I of this Article, Niles outlines the traditional judicial treatment of the Ninth Amendment, or more precisely, …

High Crimes And Misdemeanors: Defining The Constitutional Limits On Presidential Impeachment, Frank O. Bowman Iii, Stephen L. Sepinuck

Faculty Publications

This Article had its genesis in a statement by the authors submitted to the House Judiciary Committee during its proceedings regarding the impeachment of President Clinton. This final much expanded version appears after the conclusion of the Clinton impeachment proceedings in the Senate, and it is certainly informed by the course those proceedings took. Strictly speaking, however, this is not an article “about” the Clinton impeachment. Although this Article draws some conclusions from the treatment by the House and Senate of the fundamental allegations against President Clinton, it does not address in detail the specific facts underlying those allegations. The …

United States Supreme Court: 1999 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Matter Of Power: Structural Federalism And Separation Doctrine In The Present, Frances Howell Rudko

Faculty Publications

Public reaction to the 1823 Supreme Court decision in Green v. Biddle prompted John Marshall’s letter to Henry Clay, who had argued the case as amicus curiae for the defendant. The letter is significant because Marshall, who had been a legislator himself, candidly expresses not only his personal dissatisfaction with the congressional assault on the 1823 decision but also the constitutional basis for his opinion. The significance of Marshall’s extrajudicial opinion becomes more apparent when it is considered in the aftermath of the recent tug-of-war between Congress and the Court which culminated in the decision in City of Boerne v. …

The Constitutionalization Of Law In The United States, William B. Fisch, Richard S. Kay

Faculty Publications

The constitution is that the federal courts and a majority of state court systems will only entertain a constitutional claim in the context of a concrete dispute involving adversary parties with a specific stake in the outcome, and abstract review in these systems is unknown.

Constitutional Fidelity And The Commerce Clause: A Reply To Professor Ackerman, Elizabeth Price Foley, Elizabeth C. Price

Faculty Publications

Can the Constitution be legitimately, albeit implicitly, amended by the Supreme Court? The possibility of implicit constitutional amendment - most forcefully advocated by Professor Bruce Ackerman as "transformative" Supreme Court decisions - has been articulated to justify, legitimate, and entrench various radical reinterpretations of the Constitution, most notably the New Deal Court's vast expansion of the power to regulate commerce. The article concludes that such implicit constitutional amendments are theoretically illegitimate and provide strong disincentives for "We the People" to become politically active in order to "correct" flaws in the original Constitution or interpretations thereof that are deemed no longer …

United States Supreme Court: 1998 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

United States Supreme Court: 1997 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

United States Supreme Court: 1995 & 1996 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Legitimacy Of The Constitutional Judge And Theories Of Interpretation In The United States, William B. Fisch, Richard S. Kay

Faculty Publications

The Legitimacy of the Constitutional Judge and Theories of Interpretation in the United States The paper addresses the sources of legitimacy of a judge exercising the power to declare acts of government invalid on constitutional grounds, and their relationship to theories of interpretation of the constitutional texts.

United States Supreme Court: 1993-94 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

United States Supreme Court: 1991-92 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

United States Supreme Court: 1990-91 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Emergency In The Constitutional Law Of The United States, William B. Fisch

Faculty Publications

In the following report I shall concentrate on the law as pronounced by the United States Supreme Court, which has, within the sphere of judicial competence, the last say on the interpretation of the Constitution. The volume of significant litigation on the subject which stops below the Supreme Court has been relatively light, and the constitutional law declared by the lower courts has played a less significant role than is the case in many other issues. Indeed, as we shall see, the Supreme Court itself has had less to say on the topic than might be hoped for. I shall …

After We're Gone: A Commentary, Michael A. Middleton

Faculty Publications

Professor Bell has placed before us a basic question that must be dealt with by all who wish to resolve the difficulties inherent in governing a free society. That question is one with which the framers of our Constitution grappled and that baffles us still. How does a society effectively govern itself and at the same time guarantee equal liberty for all? More specifically, in the racial context presented by The Chronicle of the Space Traders, when may government act for the benefit of society in a manner that is detrimental to some of its citizens because of their race?

U.S. Supreme Court: The 1988-1989 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

U.S. Supreme Court: The 1987-88 Term (Part I), Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

U.S. Supreme Court: The 1987-88 Term (Part Ii), Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Securing Justice: A Response To William Bradford Reynolds, Michael A. Middleton

Faculty Publications

I doubt that William Bradford Reynolds would disagree that the self evident truths the Framers of the Declaration of Independence spoke about are as applicable today in the 1980's as they were over 200 years ago. I also doubt that Mr. Reynolds would disagree that despite the fact that black people were not considered human beings when the Constitution was framed, the fourteenth amendment to that great document was intended to bring them within the ambit of its protections. On these two basic propositions, I suspect, Mr. Reynolds and I would agree. Beyond that however, Mr. Reynolds advances a fundamentally …

U.S. Supreme Court: The 1986-87 Term (Part I), Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

U.S. Supreme Court: The 1986-87 Term (Part Ii), Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

U.S. Supreme Court: The 1983-84 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

U.S. Supreme Court: 1982-83 Term: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

U.S. States Supreme Court: 1982-83 Term: Partii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The United States Supreme Court: The 1978-79 Term, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Ohio Bill Of Rights, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.