Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Co. v. United States (1)
- Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Connally (1)
- American Trucking Ass'ns v. EPA (1)
- Benefits analysis (1)
- Blocked exchange (1)
-
- Blocking (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Child Online Protection Act (1)
- Clean Air Act (1)
- Communications Decency Act (1)
- Congress (1)
- Cyberspace (1)
- Davis (Kenneth Culp) (1)
- Decisionmaking (1)
- Email (1)
- Empiricism (1)
- Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Human behavior (1)
- IP address (1)
- Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute (1)
- International Union v. OSHA (1)
- Internet architecture (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Jury trial (1)
- Kids-mode browser (1)
- Liability (1)
- Mandated access control (1)
- National standard (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Is The Clean Air Act Unconstitutional?, Cass R. Sunstein
Is The Clean Air Act Unconstitutional?, Cass R. Sunstein
Michigan Law Review
This Article deals with two linked questions. The first involves the future of the Clean Air Act. The particular concern is how the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") might be encouraged, with help from reviewing courts, to issue better ambient air quality standards, and in the process to shift from some of the anachronisms of 1970s environmentalism to a more fruitful approach to environmental protection. The second question involves the role of the nondelegation doctrine in American public law, a doctrine that shows unmistakable signs of revival. I will suggest that improved performance by EPA and agencies in general, operating in …
Zoning Speech On The Internet: A Legal And Technical Model, Lawrence Lessig, Paul Resnick
Zoning Speech On The Internet: A Legal And Technical Model, Lawrence Lessig, Paul Resnick
Michigan Law Review
Speech, it is said, divides into three sorts - (1) speech that everyone has a right to (political speech, speech about public affairs); (2) speech that no one has a right to (obscene speech, child porn); and (3) speech that some have a right to but others do not (in the United States, Ginsberg speech, or speech that is "harmful to minors," to which adults have a right but kids do not). Speech-protective regimes, on this view, are those where category (1) speech predominates; speech-repressive regimes are those where categories (2) and (3) prevail. This divide has meaning for speech …
Constitutional Fact And Theory: A Response To Chief Judge Posner, Deborah Jones Merritt
Constitutional Fact And Theory: A Response To Chief Judge Posner, Deborah Jones Merritt
Michigan Law Review
In his James Madison Lecture on Constitutional Law, Chief Judge Richard Posner chides both professors and judges for devoting too much attention to constitutional theory and too little time to empiricism. Although I agree with Judge Posner's endorsement of empiricism, I dispute the roles he assigns empiricism and theory. Social science matters when interpreting the Constitution, but not in the way Posner posits. Facts cannot replace constitutional theories, nor can they mechanically resolve questions posed by theory. Instead, empirical knowledge is most useful in unmasking the theoretical assumptions that undergird constitutional law, in focusing those theories, and in contributing to …