Law Commons^™

Revisiting The History Of The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Hayward H. Smith

St. Mary's Law Journal

In hopes of legitimizing the independent state legislature doctrine, its proponents have recently made two claims with respect to history, which this Article refers to as the Substance/Procedure Thesis and the Prevailing View Thesis. The former admits that the original understanding was that state “legislatures” promulgating election law pursuant to the Elector Appointment and Elections Clauses are required to comply with state constitutionally-mandated “procedural” lawmaking requirements (such as a potential gubernatorial veto), but asserts that they were otherwise understood to be independent of “substantive” state constitutional restraints. The latter asserts that the independent state legislature doctrine was the “prevailing view” …

The Lawfulness Of The Fifteenth Amendment, Travis Crum

Notre Dame Law Review

One of the most provocative debates in constitutional theory concerns the lawfulness of the Reconstruction Amendments’ adoptions. Scholars have contested whether Article V permits amendments proposed by Congresses that excluded the Southern States and questioned whether those States’ ratifications were obtained through unlawful coercion. Scholars have also teased out differences in how States were counted for purposes of ratifying the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. This debate has focused exclusively on the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, dismissing the Fifteenth Amendment as a mere sequel.

As this Essay demonstrates, the Fifteenth Amendment’s ratification raises unique issues and adds important nuance to this …

A Breath Of Fresh Air: A Constitutional Amendment Legalizing Marijuana Through An Article V Convention Of The States, Ryan C. Griffith, Esq.

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Criminal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws by the United States federal government has been non-sensical for more than twenty years. Culminating, ultimately, in an anomaly within American jurisprudence when California legalized marijuana in 1996 in direct violation of federal law, yet the federal government did little to stop it. Since then, a majority of states have followed California and legalized marijuana. Currently, thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana despite federal law. Every year billions of dollars are spent on the federal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws while states collect billions in tax revenue from marijuana sales. Even …

Protections Against Tyranny: How Article V Should Guide Constitutional Interpretation, Mary Strong

Indiana Law Journal

This Note seeks to explain what Article V means for the methods of constitutional change outside of the traditional Article V amendment process. Specifically, I argue that Article V was meant to limit the federal government from usurping power without first attaining the consent of the people. Because the Supreme Court is part of the federal government and is often considered a counter-majoritarian institution, the Court cannot extend the powers of the federal government through constitutional interpretation beyond the bounds allowed in the Constitution. Therefore, the only means to change the power structure of the federal government (the balance of …

Ratification Of The Equal Rights Amendment: Lessons From Special Elections To The House Of Representatives In 1837, John Vlahoplus

Indiana Law Journal

In 1837 the House of Representatives considered a governor’s attempt to include a limitation in a writ issued to fill a vacancy in representation pursuant to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Representatives agreed almost unanimously that the limitation was unconstitutional and should be disregarded as mere surplusage rather than invalidating the writ and the election. This Article suggests that the similar Article V gives Congress only the power to propose amendments, without any limitation, and States the power to ratify amendments or not, without any power to rescind. Consequently, the time limit that Congress purported to impose …

Is The Constitution’S Convention For Proposing Amendments A “Mystery”? Overlooked Evidence In The Narrative Of Uncertainty, Robert G. Natelson

Marquette Law Review

Since the 1960s, leading academics and other commentators have claimed that the composition and protocols of the Constitution’s “Convention for proposing Amendments” are unknowable, subject to congressional control, or both. Today those claims are on a collision course with growing public sentiment for an amendments convention to address federal dysfunction.

Inseparable: Perspective Of Senator Daniel Webster, Ernest M. Oleksy

The Downtown Review

Considering the hypersensitivity that their nation has towards race relations, it is often ineffable to contemporary Americans as to how anyone could have argued against abolition in the 19th century. However, by taking the perspective of Senator Daniel Webster speaking to an audience of disunionist-abolitionists, proslaveryites, and various shades of moderates, numerous points of contention will be brought to light as to why chattel slavery persisted so long in the U.S. Focal points of dialogue will include the Narrative of Frederick Douglass, the "positive good" claims of Senator John C. Calhoun, the disunionism of William Lloyd Garrison, and the defense …

Amendment Creep, Jonathan L. Marshfield

Michigan Law Review

To most lawyers and judges, constitutional amendment rules are nothing more than the technical guidelines for changing a constitution’s text. But amendment rules contain a great deal of substance that can be relevant to deciding myriad constitutional issues. Indeed, judges have explicitly drawn on amendment rules when deciding issues as far afield as immigration, criminal procedure, free speech, and education policy. The Supreme Court, for example, has reasoned that, because Article V of the U.S. Constitution places no substantive limitations on formal amendment, the First Amendment must protect even the most revolutionary political viewpoints. At the state level, courts have …

Binding Authority: Unamendability In The United States Constitution—A Textual And Historical Analysis, George Mader

Marquette Law Review

We think of constitutional provisions as having contingent permanence—they are effective today and, barring amendment, tomorrow and the day after and so on until superseded by amendment. Once superseded, a provision is void. But are there exceptions to this default state of contingent permanence? Are there any provisions in the current United States Constitution that cannot be superseded by amendment—that are unamendable? And could a future amendment make itself or some portion of the existing Constitution unamendable?

Commentators investigating limits on constitutional amendment frequently focus on limits imposed by natural law, the democratic underpinnings of our nation, or some other …

James Madison And The Constitution's "Convention For Proposing Amendments", Robert G. Natelson

Akron Law Review

The last of the limited-subject interstate gatherings is today the most famous. The Annapolis Convention of 1786 was to focus on “the trade and Commerce of the United States.” Its limited scope induced Madison, who served as a delegate, explicitly to distinguish it from a plenipotentiary convention. For the most part, all of these conventions—today we might call them “task forces”—remained within the scope of their calls. If there was an exception, it was the abortive assembly at Annapolis, and that exception was solely to express the “wish” and “opinion” that another convention be held to consider defects in the …

How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian

Michigan Law Review

Learned commentators have called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA" or "the Act") "perhaps the most unconstitutional statute in the history of the nation" and "the most egregious violation of the separation of powers doctrine in American constitutional history." In the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court struck down the Act in its applications to state and local governments, declaring that "RFRA contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance." The Act's applications to federal law, however, survived Boerne, which means that plaintiffs with religious freedom claims against …

Beyond The Shell And Husk Of History: The History Of The Seventeenth Amendment And Its Implications For Current Reform Proposals , Todd J. Zywicki

Cleveland State Law Review

The purpose of this article is to review and synthesize the lessons of recent Seventeenth Amendment scholarship and how these lessons apply to current reform proposals. Part I discusses the emerging understanding of the integral and multifaceted role played by the Senate in the original constitutional structure. Part II further reviews and critiques the traditional explanations which have been offered for the Seventeenth Amendment, and demonstrates their failure to explain the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment. Part III discusses an alternative explanation for the Seventeenth Amendment rooted in a public choice analysis of constitutional change, one which largely has been …

Amending The Constitution: Just Not Every November, Brendon Troy Ishikawa

Cleveland State Law Review

Professor Akhil Amar has defended the idea that Americans may amend the Constitution regardless of Article V's dictates. Professor Amar does not stand alone on this claim. Professor Bruce Ackerman not only agrees, but would actually prefer direct popular amendment over the express Article V procedures. Their arguments, however, ignore the Framers' careful balancing of federal and popular principles in Article V by embracing only the democratic populist aspect of the Constitution. Part I of this Article examines and critiques Professor Amar's argument that the people may directly amend the Constitution without having to comply with Article V. An examination …

Why We Should Abolish Florida's Elected Cabinet, Jon C. Moyle

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Powers Of The Michigan Civil Rights Commission, Roger C. Cramton

Michigan Law Review

The thesis of this article is that the Attorney General has misread the language and actions of the constitution-makers. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission is an important and powerful agency of government which has substantial tasks to perform. But it does not possess the exclusive powers envisioned by the Attorney General. Other governmental units-the legislature, the executive, the courts, and the local governments-may continue to play a creative and positive role in fashioning a legal order that accords to every human being in society a reasonable opportunity to realize his potentialities.

Amending The Constitution Article Five: The Keystone Of The Arch, Ralph R. Martig

Michigan Law Review

Article V is the keystone of the Constitution. For, by altering its provisions, the process of amendment can be made so rigid as to become impracticable, or so flexible that the instrument can be altered without sufficient thought. Through this article, then, we reach toward every other clause in the Constitution.

The Doctrine Of The Amendability Of The United States Constitution, Hugh Evander Willis

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.