Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (1)
- Buckley Doctrine (1)
- Cadidate corruption (1)
- Campaign finance (1)
- Constitutional Commentary (1)
-
- Constitutional protection (1)
- Criminal justice (1)
- Evidentiary rule (1)
- Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (1)
- Harvard Law Review (1)
- Judicial activism (1)
- Legal Services Corporation (LSC) (1)
- Liberation hypothesis (1)
- Marketplace of ideas (1)
- Minimum bid limitation (1)
- Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) (1)
- Notre Dame Law Review (1)
- Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (OCRAA) (1)
- Party spending (1)
- Political distrust (1)
- Political responsability (1)
- Prosecutorial discretion (1)
- Public choice theory (1)
- Small Business Jobs Protection Act (SBJPA) (1)
- Soft money (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Transracial adoption (TRA) (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Recent Legislation: Constitutional Law – Congress Imposes New Restrictions On Use Of Funds By The Legal Services Corporation – Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions And Appropriations Act Of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, Benjamin L. Liebman
Faculty Scholarship
Fierce political battles have raged about the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) for much of its twenty-three year history. Critics have attacked LSC for pursuing a "radical agenda" and for "engaging in dubious litigation that is of no real benefit to poor people," while supporters have termed LSC "the one program in the entire war on poverty that made a difference" and have decried the "campaign to deny the right of legal representation to the poor." Last year, in the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (OCRAA), Congress reduced LSC funding by thirty percent – to $278 million in …
Old Chief V. United States: Stipulating Away Prosecutorial Accountability?, Daniel Richman
Old Chief V. United States: Stipulating Away Prosecutorial Accountability?, Daniel Richman
Faculty Scholarship
Earlier this year, in Old Chief v. United States, the Supreme Court finally resolved a circuit split on a nagging evidentiary issue: When a defendant charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm offers to satisfy one of the statute's elements by stipulating to the existence of a prior felony conviction, may the government decline the stipulation and prove the existence and the nature of that prior felony?
The question of evidence law resolved in Old Chief is not particularly earth-shattering. Indeed, while the Court divided five to four on the issue, neither Justice Souter's opinion …
Reading Holmes Through The Lens Of Schauer: The Abrams Dissent, Vincent A. Blasi
Reading Holmes Through The Lens Of Schauer: The Abrams Dissent, Vincent A. Blasi
Faculty Scholarship
Even the best scholars rarely persuade. Mostly, they illuminate. They make us more discerning readers and interlocutors.
Here I want to illustrate how Frederick Schauer's work on the law of free speech can help us to read what may be the single most influential judicial opinion ever written on that subject, Justice Holmes's famous dissent in Abrams v. United States. So far as I am aware, Schauer has not produced anything like a line-by-line parsing of the Holmes opinion. I claim nevertheless that a reader familiar with Schauer's ideas is far better prepared on that account to understand what Holmes …
Does Public Choice Theory Justify Judicial Activism After All?, Thomas W. Merrill
Does Public Choice Theory Justify Judicial Activism After All?, Thomas W. Merrill
Faculty Scholarship
Some legal scholars have argued that public choice theory justifies certain kinds of judicial activism. Others have said it does not. Given the present state of the debate, it would appear that those finding no necessary support for judicial activism have the stronger argument. I will suggest, however, that if we tweak the analysis a little further, it may turn out that public choice theory provides limited support for judicial activism after all.
Campaign Finance, The Parties And The Court: A Comment On Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee V. Federal Elections Commission, Richard Briffault
Campaign Finance, The Parties And The Court: A Comment On Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee V. Federal Elections Commission, Richard Briffault
Faculty Scholarship
Last term, In Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court considered a direct attack on the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act's ("FECA") limits on political party expenditures. Colorado Republican was the Court's first campaign finance case in six years and the first in which the four Justices appointed by Presidents Bush and Clinton had an opportunity to participate. Colorado Republican was also the first case in the twenty-year regime of Buckley v. Valeo concerned with the constitutionality of restrictions on parties. Coming at a time of rising public concern, increased legislative activity, …