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

Law Commons

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

Legislation

2013

Florida Law Review

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Constitutional Authority Statements In Congress, Hanah Metchis Volokh Oct 2013

Constitutional Authority Statements In Congress, Hanah Metchis Volokh

Florida Law Review

“Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.” “Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: The Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act is constitutionally authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause supports the expansion of congressional authority beyond the explicit authorities that are directly discernible from the text. Additionally, the Preamble to the Constitution provides support of …


Amending For Justice’S Sake: Codified Disclosure Rule Needed To Provide Guidance To Prosecutor’S Duty To Disclose, Nathan A. Frazier Feb 2013

Amending For Justice’S Sake: Codified Disclosure Rule Needed To Provide Guidance To Prosecutor’S Duty To Disclose, Nathan A. Frazier

Florida Law Review

"I wouldn’t wish what I am going through on anyone," Senator Ted Stevens commented after losing his seat in the United States Senate on November 18, 2008. Senator Stevens lost the race largely because a criminal conviction damaged his reputation. After Senator Stevens endured months of contentious litigation, the jury convicted the longest serving Republican senator in United States history on seven felony counts of ethics violations. Six months later, the presiding judge, the Honorable Emmet Sullivan, vacated the conviction at the request of Attorney General Eric Holder because of blatant failures to disclose exculpatory evidence. Senator Stevens brings a …


The End Of An Era: The Supreme Court (Finally) Butts Out Of Punitive Damages For Good, Jim Gash Feb 2013

The End Of An Era: The Supreme Court (Finally) Butts Out Of Punitive Damages For Good, Jim Gash

Florida Law Review

It is finally over. The Supreme Court’s incursion into punitive damages jurisprudence has unceremoniously ended, but not before the Court, under the guise of substantive due process, erected a complex and constitutionally dubious set of rules in an effort to fix the heretofore-intractable multiple punishments problem. As is often the case, the incrementalist approach taken by the Court allowed this conquest to occur somewhat quietly. Professor Pamela Karlan observes that “most constitutional law scholars have hardly noticed that the most significant innovation in substantive due process during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court years” has been the Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. …


Two Faces Of Judicial Restraint (Or Are There More?) In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Nelson Lund Feb 2013

Two Faces Of Judicial Restraint (Or Are There More?) In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Nelson Lund

Florida Law Review

Since the days of the Warren Court, conservatives have attacked “judicial activism.” Beginning with Judge Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination hearings, and lately with increasing frequency, liberals have sought to turn the tables. Critics now charge that conservative judges are activists, especially when they undermine liberal precedents or strike down liberal legislation. Defenders of judicial activism have all but disappeared. One sign of this apparent consensus is that all Supreme Court nominees now promise to be paragons of judicial restraint. Any of the following quotes, for example, could easily have been uttered by any of the four most recent nominees: …