Law Commons^™

Recovering The Lost General Welfare Clause, David S. Schwartz

William & Mary Law Review

The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution enumerates a power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare.” A literal interpretation of this clause (“the general welfare interpretation”) would authorize Congress to legislate for any national purpose, and therefore to address all national problems— for example, the COVID-19 pandemic—in ways that would be precluded under the prevailing understanding of limited enumerated powers. But conventional doctrine rejects the general welfare interpretation and construes the General Welfare Clause to confer the so-called “Spending Power,” a power only to spend, but not to regulate, for …

Standing, Politics, And Exhaustion: A Response To Legislative Exhaustion, Heather Elliott

William & Mary Law Review Online

Professor Michael Sant’Ambrogio’s article, Legislative Exhaustion, usefully approaches the problem of “legislative standing” by abandoning the typical Article III standing analysis and making instead a separation-of-powers argument. His theory—that Congress may sue the President only when it has no legislative avenue for addressing its problems—provides both a workable account of and a limiting principle for suits by the legislative branch against the executive. His analysis, however, raises questions regarding the effect of legislative lawsuits on the constitutional balance of powers. This Essay suggests that these questions should be more fully explored before Professor Sant’Ambrogio’s approach can be adopted. It concludes …

Preemption As A Consistency Doctrine, Jesse Merriam

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

When States’ Legislation And Constitutions Collide With Angry Locals: Shale Oil And Gas Development And Its Many Masters, Heidi Gorovitz Robertson

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

This Article explores the nationally common problem of tension and conflict among state oil and gas statutes, constitutional home rule, and local control by considering intersections and tensions among the Ohio Constitution’s home rule authority, the Ohio oil and gas law’s preemption provision, and the many regulatory efforts of Ohio’s local governments. It explores the scope of the Ohio Constitution’s home rule authority, in part, by evaluating courts’ statements on the validity of several types of local ordinances, as they confront home rule and a legislative attempt at preemption. Types of local ordinances evaluated include those that prohibit or ban …

Unstable Footing: Shelby County’S Misapplication Of The Equal Footing Doctrine, Austin Graham

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Congress's Treaty-Implementing Power In Historical Practice, Jean Galbraith

William & Mary Law Review

Historical practice strongly influences constitutional interpretation in foreign relations law, including most questions relating to the treaty power. Yet it is strikingly absent from the present debate over whether Congress can pass legislation implementing U.S. treaties under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Drawing on previously unexplored sources, this Article considers the historical roots of Congress’s power to implement U.S. treaties between the Founding Era and the seminal case of Missouri v. Holland in 1920. It shows that time after time, members of Congress understood the Necessary and Proper Clause to provide a constitutional basis for a congressional power to implement …

Shelby County And The Illusion Of Minimalism, Richard L. Hasen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Congressional Silence And The Statutory Interpretation Game, Paul Stancil

William & Mary Law Review

This Article explores the circumstances under which the federal legislative apparatus may be unable to respond to a politically objectionable statutory interpretation from the Supreme Court. The Article builds upon existing economic models of statutory interpretation, incorporating transaction costs into the analysis for the first time. The Article concludes by identifying recent real-world disputes in which transaction costs likely constrained Congress and the President from overriding the Court.

Can Erie Survive As Federal Common Law?, Craig Green

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

General Law In Federal Court, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A General Theory Of Governance: Due Process And Lawmaking Power, Louise Weinberg

William & Mary Law Review

This Article proposes a general theory describing the nature and sources of law in American courts. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins is rejected for this purpose. Better, more general theory is available, flowing from the Due Process Clauses. At its narrowest, the proposed theory is consonant with Erie but generalizes it, embracing federal as well as state law and statutory as well as decisional law in both state and federal courts. More broadly, beyond this unification of systemic thinking, the interest-analytic methodology characteristic of due process extends to a range of substantive constitutional problems. These include problems concerning both the …

An Unusual Separation Of Power Episode: Samantar V. Yousuf And The Need For The Executive Branch To Assert Control Over Foreign Official Sovereign Immunity Determinations, Laura Manns

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Federalism Under Obama, Gillian E. Metzger

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legislating Preemption, Jamelle C. Sharpe

William & Mary Law Review

Federal preemption is perhaps the most important public law issueof the day. The stakes in preemption cases are enormous, as preemption determines whether the federal government or the statescontrol regulatory policy in a host of politically controversial contexts. Congress clearly has primary constitutional authority insetting federal preemption policy, but, for numerous political and practical reasons, cannot be solely responsible for its implementation.Determining which organ of the federal government is best at implementing preemption policy has therefore become the central preoccupation of the academic literature. While this comparative institutional analysis is certainly important in allocating preemptionpolicy-making business, it has elided a …

Executive Branch Czars, Who Are They? Are They Needed? Can Congress Do Anything About Them?, Jonathan D. Puvak

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Federal Law In State Court: Judicial Federalism Through A Relational Lens, Charlton C. Copeland

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Enforcing federalism is most commonly thought to involve the search for a
constitutional delegation of substantive power. Although in modern times the substantive power might be overlapping or shared authority, federalism enforcement proceeds from a determination about the site of substantive power. This conception of federalism enforcement preserves the Constitution’s commitment to fractionated authority by determining whether power is legitimately possessed. Thus we understand significant federalism disputes in our age as framed by whether Congress has the authority to enact comprehensive health care reform legislation, or whether Congress
has exceeded its authority in reenacting the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirements. …

No Ambiguity Left Behind: A Discussion Of The Clear Statement Rule And The Unfunded Mandates Clause Of No Child Left Behind, Andrew G. Caffrey

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"Relative Checks": Towards Optimal Control Of Administrative Power, David S. Rubenstein

William & Mary Law Review

Administrative agencies wield a necessary but dangerous power. Some control of that power is constitutionally required and normatively justified. Yet widely discordant views persist concerning the appropriate means of control. Scholars have proposed competing administrative control models that variably place the judiciary, the President, and Congress at the helm. Although these models offer critical insights into the institutional competencies of the respective branches, they tend to understate the limitations of those branches to check administrative power and ultimately marginalize the public interest costs occasioned by second-guessing administrative choice. The “relative checks” paradigm introduced here seeks to improve upon existing models …

The Vote From Beyond The Grave, Krysta R. Edwards

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Should Regulate? Federalism And Conflict In Regulation Of Green Buildings, Shari Shapiro

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Tort Experiments In The Laboratories Of Democracy, Alexandra B. Klass

William & Mary Law Review

This Article considers the broad range of "tort experiments" states have undertaken in recent years, as well as the changing attitudes of Congress and the Supreme Court toward state tort law. Notably, while states have limited tort rights and remedies in the products liability and personal injury areas in recent years, they have at the same time increased tort rights and remedies to address new societal problems associated with privacy, publicity, consumer protection, and environmental harm. At the same time, however, Congress has eliminated state tort law entirely in targeted areas without replacing it with corresponding federal remedies. The Supreme …

Interpreting The Fourteenth Amendment: Two Don'ts And Three Dos, Garrett Epps

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

A sophisticated reading of the legislative record of the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment can provide courts and scholars with some general interpretive principles to guide their application of the Amendment to current legal problems. The author argues that two common legal conceptions about the Amendment are, in fact, misconceptions. The first is that the Amendment was chiefly concerned with the immediate situation of freed slaves in the former slave states. Instead, he argues, the legislative record suggests that the framers were broadly concerned with the rights not only of freed slaves but also of foreign-born immigrants in the North …

Congress Has The Power To Enforce The Bill Of Rigths Against The Federal Government; Therefore Fisa Is Constitutional And The President's Terrorist Surveillance Program Is Illegal, Wilson R. Huhn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The principal point of this Article is that Congress has plenary authority to enforce the Bill of Rights against the federal government. Although this precept is a fundamental one, neither the Supreme Court nor legal scholars have articulated this point in clear, simple, and direct terms. The Supreme Court does not have a monopoly on the Bill of Rights. Congress, too, has constitutional authority to interpret our rights and to enforce or enlarge them as against the actions of the federal government. Congress exercised its power to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens when it enacted the Foreign Intelligence …

Congressional Criminality And Balance Of Powers: Are Internal Filter Teams Really What Our Forefathers Envisioned?, Emily E. Eineman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Signing Statements And Divided Government, Neal Devins

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Second Class Citizen Soldiers: A Proposal For Greater First Amendment Protections For America's Military Personnel, Emily Reuter

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Why The President Must Veto Unconstitutional Bills, Saikrishna B. Prakash

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The New Massachusetts Health Law: Preemption And Experimentation, Edward A. Zelinsky

William & Mary Law Review

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts major features of the new Massachusetts health law. Although regrettable, this conclusion is mandated by ERISA's statutory terminology and the controlling case law. Other states, in fashioning their health care policies, are looking at elements of the new Massachusetts law. Just as ERISA preempts the individual and business contribution mandates of the Massachusetts statute, ERISA will preempt any similar provisions adopted by other states.

Because state experimentation with health care is particularly desirable today, Congress should, at a minimum, amend ERISA to validate the new Massachusetts health law. More comprehensively, …

The On/Off Switch, Philip Heymann

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Litigating Presidential Signing Statements, Michele Estrin Gilman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.