Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Courts

Selected Works

2013

Constitutional law

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Direct Democracy And Hastily Enacted Statutes, John C. Nagle Nov 2013

Direct Democracy And Hastily Enacted Statutes, John C. Nagle

John Copeland Nagle

No abstract provided.


Executive Power In Youngstown's Shadows, Patricia L. Bellia Oct 2013

Executive Power In Youngstown's Shadows, Patricia L. Bellia

Patricia L. Bellia

Fifty years after it was handed down, the Supreme Court's decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer is among the most important of the Court's separation of powers cases. This Article explores two quite different legacies of the Youngstown case. First, Youngstown has a symbolic or rhetorical power, in that it stands as an example of a court invalidating the actions of a coordinate branch of government in a politically delicate context. When a court wields this weapon, it can take some cover in Youngstown's shadows, and the possibility of a court exercising this power disciplines the executive …


Equilibrium, Adam Lamparello Oct 2013

Equilibrium, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

No abstract provided.


Partially Concurrent Sentences, Statutory Interpretation, And Legislative Intent: Amicus Brief Filed In State V. Bryant Wilson (Indiana Supreme Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean Jan 2013

Partially Concurrent Sentences, Statutory Interpretation, And Legislative Intent: Amicus Brief Filed In State V. Bryant Wilson (Indiana Supreme Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Indiana Code § 35-50-1-2 states that terms of imprisonment “shall be served concurrently or consecutively.” The Code’s plain language does not authorize courts to impose partially consecutive, blended, or “split sentences. Partially consecutive sentences would impermissibly read into the Code a third sentencing option, thus contradicting Indiana’s well-settled jurisprudence and undermining the goal of reasonable uniformity in sentencing. The decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals should therefore be reversed.