Law Commons^™

Section 1983 And Constitutional Torts, Charles F. Abernathy

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

We have long recognized that the resurrection of section 1983 converted the fourteenth amendment from a shield into a sword by providing a civil action for vindication of constitutional rights and, to the extent that damages have gradually become the authorized remedy for section 1983 violations, we have easily come to think of such actions as constitutional torts-civil damage remedies for violations of constitutionally defined rights. There is, however, a subtler and greater reality to what has transpired, for the mere procedural vehicle of constitutional enforcement has, in retrospect, changed the substance of constitutional law itself. Section 1983 has not …

The Fifth Amendment: If An Aid To The Guilty Defendant, An Impediment To The Innocent One, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The fifth amendment's privilege not to answer, critics carp, insulates the guilty defendant from revealing his complicity. While this is true, ironically it also can shackle the innocent defendant from attempting to prove that another person committed the crime. If that other person asserts the fifth amendment in response to questions designed to substitute him for the defendant, the innocent defendant can neither surmount that person's assertion nor benefit therefrom.

Consider this set of facts. A murder is committed. Defendant, charged with the crime, has evidence that Witness killed the victim. The prosecution believes only one person committed the crime. …

Faith And Justice, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

What is the relationship between faith and justice? In particular, this Article will address the question of what a Justice of the United States Supreme Court should do, when her religious faith suggests that a case should be resolved in a way that is either inconsistent with the law or not justified by nonreligious, public reasons. May she rely on her religious beliefs to resolve a hard case? May she write an opinion that uses religious grounds to justify her decision?

In this Article, I will undertake to elaborate and defend a distinctively liberal position concerning faith and justice. My …

Originalism As Transformative Politics, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

One might easily paint a picture in which the central question debated in constitutional jurisprudence in recent years was whether originalism is the correct theory of constitutional interpretation. This portrait of a constitutional debate could be quite dramatic. Prominent among the figures on the originalist side stand former Judge Robert Bork, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, former Attorney General Edwin Meese, and scholar Raoul Berger. Their opponents, the nonoriginalists, include Senator Joseph Biden, Associate Justice William Brennan, and a host of constitutional scholars. The stakes of the debate seem high: will the legacy of the Warren Court be dismantled by the …

Law, Literature, And The Celebration Of Authority, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Richard Posner's new book, Law and Literature: A Misunderstood Relation, is a defense of “liberal legalism” against a group of modern critics who have only one thing in common: their use of either particular pieces of literature or literary theory to mount legal critiques. Perhaps for that reason, it is very hard to discern a unified thesis within Posner's book regarding the relationship between law and literature. In part, Posner is complaining about a pollution of literature by its use and abuse in political and legal argument; thus, the “misunderstood relation” to which the title refers. At times, Posner suggests …

Of Chickens And Eggs−−The Compatibility Of Moral Rights And Consequentialist Analyses, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Philosophers are accustomed to thinking of moral rights and consequentialist analyses as fundamentally incompatible. They frequently debate cases--both hypothetical and real--in which rights and consequences are in conflict. For example, suppose an innocent child knows the whereabouts of a terrorist who has planted a nuclear bomb in a city. Would it be permissible to violate the child's moral right to be free from torture, if this was the only way to save millions of innocent lives? If this is permissible, then do not moral rights yield to concerns about consequences? Or suppose that a community incorrectly believes that an innocent …

Is Law Politics?, Philip Chase Bobbitt

Faculty Scholarship

Red, White, and Blue addresses the pervasive presence of five general theories of American constitutional law. These theories reflect particular jurisprudential ideologies governing, among other things, the legitimacy of certain arguments, the appropriateness of certain occasions for judicial intervention and the constitutional basis for judicial review. What makes this book interesting and important is that it provides an unwitting or at least unself-conscious example of the general theorizing it wishes to explain. For this reason, its descriptions of the particular family of theories that characterize American constitutional jurisprudence are distorted, while it disclaims any account of the particular set of …