Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Model Continuity Of Congress Statute, Seth Barrett Tillman
Model Continuity Of Congress Statute, Seth Barrett Tillman
Seth Barrett Tillman
This is a model continuity of Congress statute. States with constitutional provisions similar to U.S. Const. art. I, Section 7 could easily modify the act in light of their state constitutional and parliamentary nuances.
My opening article appears at: Tillman, Model, 4 PIERCE LAW REVIEW 191 (2006). Professor Sanford V. Levinson comments on my Model at: Levinson, Comment, Assuring Continuity of Government, 4 PIERCE LAW REVIEW 201 (2006). I reply to his comment at: Tillman, Reply, Overruling INS v. Chadha, 4 PIERCE LAW REVIEW 207 (2006).
Since publication, Pierce Law Review has been renamed University of New Hampshire Law Review. …
Overruling Ins V. Chadha: Advice On Choreography - A Reply To Professor Sanford Levinson, Seth Barrett Tillman
Overruling Ins V. Chadha: Advice On Choreography - A Reply To Professor Sanford Levinson, Seth Barrett Tillman
Seth Barrett Tillman
This article is published in conjunction with my Model Continuity of Congress Statute. Professor Sanford V. Levinson in a comment, appearing with the "Model," has voiced legal and prudential objections to my proposed statutory solution. This Reply responds to those objections.
My opening article appears at: Tillman, Model, 4 PIERCE LAW REVIEW 191 (2006). Professor Sanford V. Levinson comments on my Model at: Levinson, Comment, Assuring Continuity of Government, 4 PIERCE LAW REVIEW 201 (2006). I reply to his comment at: Tillman, Reply, Overruling INS v. Chadha, 4 PIERCE LAW REVIEW 207 (2006).
Since publication, Pierce Law Review has been …
A Textualist Defense Of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth V. Viriginia Was Rightly Decided, And Why Ins V. Chadha Was Wrongly Reasoned, Seth Barrett Tillman
A Textualist Defense Of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth V. Viriginia Was Rightly Decided, And Why Ins V. Chadha Was Wrongly Reasoned, Seth Barrett Tillman
Seth Barrett Tillman
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 reads:
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Madison, in his Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention (Aug. 15 …