Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Justiciability Of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?, Daniel P. Tokaji
The Justiciability Of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?, Daniel P. Tokaji
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The 2008 election cycle has been a busy one for legal disputes over the qualifications of presidential candidates, with federal cases having been filed to challenge both major candidates’ eligibility under the “natural born Citizen” clause. These cases unquestionably present vital questions of constitutional law, touching on matters of self-evident national importance. It is doubtful, however, that they are justiciable in lower federal courts. Standing requirements and the political question doctrine make it unlikely that a federal court will reach the merits in cases of the type filed to date.
Originalism And The Natural Born Citizen Clause, Lawrence B. Solum
Originalism And The Natural Born Citizen Clause, Lawrence B. Solum
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The enigmatic phrase “natural born citizen” poses a series of problems for contemporary originalism. New Originalists, like Justice Scalia, focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. The notion of a “natural born citizen” was likely a term of art derived from the idea of a “natural born subject” in English law—a category that most likely did not extend to persons, like Senator McCain, who were born outside sovereign territory. But the Constitution speaks of “citizens” and not “subjects,” introducing uncertainties and ambiguities that might (or might not) make McCain eligible for the presidency.
Federal Courts-Criminal Procedure-Effect Of Excusing Procedure On Composition Of Jury Panel, Robert P. Griffin
Federal Courts-Criminal Procedure-Effect Of Excusing Procedure On Composition Of Jury Panel, Robert P. Griffin
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner was found guilty of violating the Harrison Narcotics Act in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia by a jury composed wholly of federal employees. During the course of voir dire examination, petitioner moved to strike the entire panel, asserting that it did not represent a proper cross-section of the community. This motion was denied. Petitioner exhausted his ten peremptory challenges, and, upon finding that only government employees remained on the jury, then challenged the jury as impaneled for cause. The challenge was overruled. Conviction was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. On certiorari to the …