Law Commons^™

The Uniform Commercial Code Meets The Seventh Amendment: The Demise Of Jury Trials Under Article 5?, Margaret L. Moses

Margaret L. Moses

No abstract provided.

Hamilton And Madison Deploy ‘Constitution’ In The Federalist Papers: Semantic Values Surveyed, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

The eighty-five Federal Papers (authors James Madison and Alexander Hamilton; John Jay contributed five) are justifiably famous as elaborations of constitutional structure and text, sans citation to the convention, understandably, since secrecy imposed by Standing Order on May 28th was continued indefinitely (at the pleasure/non-action of Congress) on September 17th. Counts on semantic value/s of ‘constitution’ and ‘constitutional’ are surveyed.

United States V. Klein, Then And Now, Gordon G. Young

Gordon G. Young

United States v. Klein, decided during Reconstruction, was the first Supreme Court case to invalidate a statutory restriction on federal courts’ jurisdiction. It is the only one to do so by finding a violation of Article III of the Constitution. Klein has been cited in thirty-three United States Supreme Court opinions, and roughly five hundred times each by lower federal courts and law journal articles. Recent commentators have read Klein both too broadly and narrowly. Its central holding is that Congress may not grant federal courts jurisdiction to decide a set of cases on the merits while depriving them …

Subtraction By Addition?: The Thirteenth And Fourteenth Amendments, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

The celebration of the Thirteenth Amendment in many Essays prepared for this Symposium may be premature. That the Thirteenth Amendment arguably protects a different and, perhaps, wider array of rights than the Fourteenth Amendment may be less important than the less controversial claim that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the Thirteenth Amendment. If the Fourteenth Amendment covers similar ground as the Thirteenth Amendment, but protects a narrower set of rights than the Thirteenth Amendment, then the proper inference may be that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or modified crucial rights originally protected by the Thirteenth Amendment. The broad interpretation of …

The Ecuadorian Exemplar: The First Ever Vindications Of Constitutional Rights Of Nature, Erin Daly

Erin Daly

The 'Sala de le Corte Provincial' - a provincial court in Ecuador - became the first court ever to vindicate the recently constitutionalized rights of nature. Recognizing the indisputable importance of the rights of nature for present and future generations, the court held the provincial government liable for flooding damages caused by dumping of construction debris. This judicial victory is arguably overshadowed by challenges facing the plaintiffs in seeing the courts order enforced, however. A subsequent case bears witness to the judiciary’s vindication of rights of nature in Ecuador with ever increasing legal effect.

Hollow Hopes And Exaggerated Fears: The Canon/Anticanon In Context, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

Students of American constitutionalism should add constitutional decisions made by elected officials to the constitutional canon and the constitutional anticanon. Neither the canonical nor the anticanonical constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court have produced the wonderful results or horrible evils sometimes attributed to them. In many cases, elected officials made contemporaneous constitutional decisions that had as much influence as the celebrated or condemned judicial rulings. More often than not, judicial rulings matter more as a result of changing the political dynamics than by directly changing public policy. Law students and others interested in constitutional change, for these reasons, need to …

Plus Or Minus One: The Thirteenth And Fourteenth Amendments, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

The consensus that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Thirteenth Amendment has come under sharp criticism in recent years. Several new works suggest that the Thirteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, protects some substantive rights not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Some of this scholarship is undoubtedly motivated by an effort to avoid hostile Supreme Court precedents. Nevertheless, more seems to be going on than mere litigation strategy. Scholars detected different rights and regime principles in the Thirteenth Amendment than they find in the Fourteenth Amendment. The 2011 Maryland Constitutional Law Schoomze, to which this is an introduction, provided an opportunity for law …

The Long And Winding Road From Monroe To Connick, Sheldon Nahmod

Sheldon Nahmod

In this article, I address the historical and doctrinal development of § 1983 local government liability, beginning with Monroe v. Pape in 1961 and culminating in the Supreme Court’s controversial 2011 failure to train decision in Connick v. Thompson. Connick has made it exceptionally difficult for § 1983 plaintiffs to prevail against local governments in failure to train cases. In the course of my analysis, I also consider the oral argument and opinions in Connick as well as various aspects of § 1983 doctrine. I ultimately situate Connick in the Court’s federalism jurisprudence which doubles back to Justice Frankfurter’s view …

Judicial Review And Originalism: Do We Really Want A "Dead" Constitution, Albert E. Poirier Jr.

Albert E Poirier Jr.