Law Commons^™

Marbury In Mexico: Judicial Review's Precocious Southern Migration, M. C. Mirow

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Scholars agree that the United States Supreme Court did not "discover" the general judicial review aspects of Marbury v. Madison (1803) until nearly a century later in 1895. This article reveals that the Mexican Supreme Court, relying heavily on U.S. constitutional sources and actually quoting Marbury, discovered this aspect of the case more than a dozen years earlier than the United States Supreme Court.

In attempting to construct United States-style judicial review for the Mexican Supreme Court in the 1880s, Ignacio Vallarta, president of the court, read Marbury in a way that preceded this use of the case in the …

The State Secrets Privilege: What's Wrong With It, How It Got That Way, And How The Courts Can Fix It, Christohper D. Yamaoka

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

The state secrets privilege shields evidence from discovery at trial where disclosure of the evidence would threaten national security. It is an important privilege, allowing the government to protect potentially dangerous information from being exposed by way of litigation. But it is also a powerful privilege; when accepted, it often leads to outright dismissal of the case. Given its nuclear effect, expansion of the doctrine beyond its legitimate bounds is constitutionally troubling. And indeed, over the last half century, the privilege has expanded far beyond its original form: courts have grown increasingly likely to use it to dismiss litigation before …

Misplaced Angst: Another Look At Consent-Search Jurisprudence, Daniel R. Williams

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Same-Sex Unions, And The Supreme Court, Michael J. Perry

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Jamie Cameron

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Day The Dialogue Died: A Comment On Sauve V. Canada, Christopher P. Manfredi

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In Sauvé v. Canada (2002) a sharply divided Supreme Court of Canada nullified the inmate disenfranchisement provision of the Canada Elections Act. One of the more important aspects of the majority decision by Chief Justice McLachlin is her refusal to let the concept of dialogue take her down the path of judicial deference. This commentary examines the chief justice's reasons for not taking this path and explores how these reasons reveal the limitations of the dialogue metaphor as originally articulated by Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell. The commentary concludes that any meaningful concept of legislative-judicial dialogue must recognize a coordinate …

Does The Observer Have An Effect?: An Analysis Of The Use Of The Dialogue Metaphor In Canada's Courts, Richard Haigh, Michael Sobkin

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In "Charter Dialogue Revisited-Or 'Much Ado About Metaphors,"' it is noted that the original idea behind the dialogue metaphor was simply to describe Canada's constitutional structure. Despite this, the metaphor has been criticized for having normative content and influencing courts and legislatures. In this commentary, the authors analyze all Supreme Court of Canada and lower court uses of the dialogue metaphor and conclude that, with some exceptions, the courts have employed the metaphor properly, i.e., descriptively. Since, however, the metaphor can be misapplied-used other than to describe or explain the relationship between the courts and legislatures in Canada-the authors recommend …

The D'Oh! Of Popular Constitutionalism, Neal Devins

Michigan Law Review

This Review will be divided into three parts. Part I will both summarize The Most Democratic Branch and highlight some of the difficulties that the Supreme Court would face in implementing Rosen's decision-making model. In particular, by allowing the Court to invalidate laws for a host of "antidemocratic" reasons, Rosen's matrix does not constrain the Court in a predictable way. Part II will examine some of the empirical evidence about public attitudes toward the Supreme Court, including public awareness of Supreme Court decisions. I will contend that the Court cannot look to the people to sort out the Constitution's meaning …

Remarkable Evolution: The Early Constitutional History Of Maryland, Charles A. Rees

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hamdan As An Assertion Of Judicial Power , Jana Singer

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federalism And The Tug Of War Within: Seeking Checks And Balance In The Interjurisdictional Gray Area, Erin Ryan

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking Dialogue Theory Much Too Seriously (Or Perhaps Charter Dialogue Isn't Such A Good Thing After All), Andrew Petter

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article challenges the thesis of Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, and Wade K. Wright (put forth earlier in this issue) that the frequency of legislative responses to Charter decisions striking down laws, which they refer to as "Charter dialogue," provides evidence that Canada has a weaker form of. judicial review than is thought to exist in the United States. This article also critiques their claim that judicial review is justified by the idea that individuals have rights that cannot be taken away by an appeal to the general welfare'. The author maintains that this claim not only …

New Jersey’S Civil Union Law: A Constitutional “Equal” Creates Inequality, Thomas H. Prol

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Falling To Pieces: New York State Civil Legal Remedies Available To Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, And Transgender Survivors Of Domestic Violence, Sharon Stapel

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hammering In Screws: Why The Court Should Look Beyond Summary Judgment When Resolving Section 1983 Qualified Immunity Disputes, Teressa E. Ravenell

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why The Supreme Court Lied In Plessy, David S. Bogen

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Doubtful Validity Of Victim-Specific Libel Laws, Nat Stern

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Which Comes First In Federal Court, The Chicken Or The Baby Chicks: The Unavailability Of Federal Remedies For Spousal Consortium Claims Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Michelle N. Ferreri

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legislative Findings, Congressional Powers, And The Future Of The Voting Rights Act, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Indiana Law Journal

In enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress sought to overcome decades of outright refusal to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. The statute was considered "harsh " and "punitive" by critics, and the Supreme Court partially agreed, calling the legislation "stringent, " inventive, " and "uncommon. " Yet the Court ultimately sided with the national ruling coalition as represented by the administration and overwhelming congressional majorities. This Article examines the early internal debates over the constitutionality of the Act and concludes that the question of legislative findings played a key role. In particular, internal notes and memoranda from the Katzenbach …

When Courts Shouldn't Take The Initiative: Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act, Initiative Petitions, And Operation King's Dream, Francesca Ambrosio

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that interpreting section 2 to exclude initiative proposals during their circulation phase is the only way to avoid insurmountable statutory construction problems and constitutional objections. It grounds the theoretical discussion of the VRA in an analysis of how the court applied section 2 in Operation King's Dream. Part I provides the legal landscape of a section 2 claim, including relevant legislative history and the essential elements of a successful claim. Part II contends that because no voting takes place during the petition phase of a proposal, petition circulation can neither deny nor abridge the right to …

Signing Statements And The New Supreme Court: The Future Of Presidential Expression, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1317 (2007), Anne Skrodzki

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Charter Dialogue Revisited: Or "Much Ado About Metaphors", Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, Wade K. Wright

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article is a sequel to the 1997 article "The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps The Charter of Rights Isn't Such A Bad Thing After All)." In the present article, the authors review various academic critiques of their "dialogue" theory, which postulates that Charter decisions striking down laws are not the last word, but rather the beginning of a "dialogue," because legislative bodies are generally able to (and generally do) enact sequel legislation that accomplishes the main objective of the unconstitutional law. The authors also examine the Supreme Court of Canada's dicta on the "dialogue" phenomenon, and …

Dialogue Theory, Judicial Review, And Judicial Supremacy: A Comment On "Charter Dialogue Revisted", Carissima Mathen

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

By suggesting that we view the judicial-legislative relationship as a dialogue, the authors of "Charter Dialogue" have greatly influenced constitutional debate in Canada. This commentary offers three observations about the authors' latest contribution. First, it queries the continued usefulness of the term "dialogue." Second, it raises concerns with the idea that section 1 of the Charter promotes dialogue, as the term is now explained by the authors. Finally, it queries the authors' perspective on judicial review and their accompanying terminology.