Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Interpreting Force Authorization, Scott Sullivan
Interpreting Force Authorization, Scott Sullivan
Journal Articles
This Article presents a theory of authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs) that reconciles separation of power failures in the current interpretive model. Existing doctrine applies the same text-driven models of statutory interpretation to AUMFs that are utilized with all other legal instruments. However, the conditions at birth, objectives, and expected impacts underlying military force authorizations differ dramatically from typical legislation. AUMFs are focused but temporary corrective interventions intended to change the underlying facts that prompted their passage. This Article examines historical practice and utilizes institutionalist principles to develop a theory of AUMF decay that eschews text in …
When Do The Ends Justify The Means?: The Role Of The Necessary And Proper Clause In The Commerce Clause Analysis, David Loudon
When Do The Ends Justify The Means?: The Role Of The Necessary And Proper Clause In The Commerce Clause Analysis, David Loudon
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This Article discusses the interplay between the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause, particularly in light of the landmark decision of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. First, this Article reviews the historical interaction between the two clauses, discussing the instances in which the two may have been considered together, and introducing the Supreme Court jurisprudence of each clause, setting the legal landscape for the NFIB v. Sebelius decision. Next, this Article details the three opinions from the NFIB v. Sebelius decision, Chief Justice Roberts’ holding, the joint concurrence, and Justice Ginsberg’s dissent, specifically as they …
The Sweeping Domestic War Powers Of Congress, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash
The Sweeping Domestic War Powers Of Congress, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash
Michigan Law Review
With the Habeas Clause standing as a curious exception, the Constitution seems mysteriously mute regarding federal authority during invasions and rebellions. In truth, the Constitution speaks volumes about these domestic wars. The inability to perceive the contours of the domestic wartime Constitution stems, in part, from unfamiliarity with the multifarious emergency legislation enacted during the Revolutionary War. During that war, state and national legislatures authorized the seizure of property, military trial of civilians, and temporary dictatorships. Ratified against the backdrop of these fairly recent wartime measures, the Constitution, via the Necessary and Proper Clause and other provisions, rather clearly augmented …
The Ndaa, Aumf, And Citizens Detained Away From The Theater Of War: Sounding A Clarion Call For A Clear Statement Rule, Diana Cho
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In the armed conflict resulting from the September 11 attacks, the executive authority to order the indefinite detention of citizens captured away from the theater of war is an issue of foreign and domestic significance. The relevant law of armed conflict provisions relevant to conflicts that are international or non-international in nature, however, do not fully address this issue. Congress also intentionally left the question of administrative orders of citizen detainment unresolved in a controversial provision of the 2012 version of the annually-enacted National Defense Authorization Act. While plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama sought to challenge the enforceability of NDAA’s …
The Efficacy Of Indefinite Detention: Assessment Of Immigration Case Law In Kiyemba V. Obama, Hansdeep Singh
The Efficacy Of Indefinite Detention: Assessment Of Immigration Case Law In Kiyemba V. Obama, Hansdeep Singh
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This note discusses the potential indefinite detention, also called preventative detention, of the Uighur detainees. Until early 2010, the U.S. Government had been unable to resettle seventeen Uighurs for over 5 years. In 2009, the Supreme Court, granted certiorari on the issue of whether federal courts have the authority to ―order the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay 'where the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy.‘ However, on March 1, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the United States …