Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Congress (7)
- United States Supreme Court (5)
- Constitutional violations (4)
- Discrimination (4)
- Preclearance (4)
-
- Race and law (4)
- Racial discrimination (4)
- Remedial regimes (4)
- Shelby County v. Holder (4)
- Voting (4)
- Voting Rights Act (4)
- Voting practices (4)
- African Americans (3)
- Department of Justice (3)
- Deterrence (3)
- Law reform (2)
- Affordable Care Act (1)
- Anti-leveraging (1)
- Appropriations (1)
- Authority (1)
- Bretton Woods Agreement Act (1)
- Coercion (1)
- Congressional oversight (1)
- Consitutionality (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Decision making (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Doctors (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Congress Underestimated: The Case Of The World Bank, Kristina Daugirdas
Congress Underestimated: The Case Of The World Bank, Kristina Daugirdas
Articles
This article challenges the oft-repeated claim that international organizations undermine democracy by marginalizing national legislatures. Over the past forty years, Congress has established itself as a key player in setting U.S. policy toward the World Bank. Congress has done far more than restrain executive branch action with which it disagrees; it has affirmatively shaped the United States’ day-to-day participation in this key international organization and successfully defended its constitutional authority to do so.
The Anti-Leveraging Principle And The Spending Clause After Nfib, Samuel R. Bagenstos
The Anti-Leveraging Principle And The Spending Clause After Nfib, Samuel R. Bagenstos
Articles
This Article offers an initial assessment of the Supreme Court’s Spending Clause holding in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB), which addressed the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, NFIB marks “the first time ever” that the Court has held that a spending condition unconstitutionally coerced the states. The implications of that holding are potentially massive, and some of the language in the decision, if read broadly, would seriously threaten the constitutionality of a broad swath of federal spending legislation. Notwithstanding some of the Court’s language, this Article contends that the case …
What Was Wrong With The Record?, Ellen D. Katz
What Was Wrong With The Record?, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Shelby County v. Holder offers three reasons for why the record Congress amassed to support the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was legally insufficient to justify the statute's continued regional application: (1) the problems Congress documented in 2006 were not as severe as those that prompted it to craft the regime in 1965; (2) these problems did not lead Congress to alter the statute's pre-existing coverage formula; and (3) these problems did not exclusively involve voter registration and the casting of ballots.
Revisiting 'Truth In Securities Revisited': Abolishing Ipos And Harnessing Private Markets In The Public Good, Adam C. Pritchard
Revisiting 'Truth In Securities Revisited': Abolishing Ipos And Harnessing Private Markets In The Public Good, Adam C. Pritchard
Articles
My thesis is that the transition between private- and public-company status could be less bumpy if we unify the public-private dividing line under the Securities Act and Exchange Act. The insight builds on Cohen's thought experiment where Congress first enacted the Exchange Act. My proposed public-private standard would take the company-registration model to its logical conclusion. The customary path to public-company status is through an IPO, typically with simultaneous listing of the shares on an exchange. There is nothing about public offerings, however, that makes them inherently antecedent to public-company status. What if companies became public, with required periodic disclosures …
Bedside Bureaucrats: Why Medicare Reform Hasn't Worked, Nicholas Bagley
Bedside Bureaucrats: Why Medicare Reform Hasn't Worked, Nicholas Bagley
Articles
Notwithstanding its obvious importance, Medicare is almost invisible in the legal literature. Part of the reason is that administrative law scholars typically train their attention on the sources of external control over agencies’ exercise of the vast discretion that Congress so often delegates to them. Medicare’s administrators, however, wield considerably less policy discretion than the agencies that feature prominently in the legal commentary. Traditional administrative law thus yields slim insight into Medicare’s operation. But questions about external control do not—or at least they should not—exhaust the field. An old and often disregarded tradition in administrative law focuses not on external …
South Carolina's 'Evolutionary Process', Ellen D. Katz
South Carolina's 'Evolutionary Process', Ellen D. Katz
Articles
When Congress first enacted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965, public officials in South Carolina led the charge to scrap the new statute. Their brief to the Supreme Court of the United States described the VRA as an “unjustified” and “arbitrary” affront to the “Equality of Statehood” principle, and a “usurp[ation]” of the State’s legislative and executive functions. Not surprisingly, the Warren Court was unpersuaded and opted instead to endorse broad congressional power to craft “inventive” remedies to address systematic racial discrimination and to “shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of evil to its victims.” …
Shelby County V. Holder: Why Section 2 Matters, Ellen D. Katz
Shelby County V. Holder: Why Section 2 Matters, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Editor’s Note: Professor Ellen D. Katz writes and teaches about election law, civil rights and remedies, and equal protection. She and the Voting Rights Initiative at Michigan Law filed a brief as amicus curiae in Shelby County v. Holder, on which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments February 27. Here, she examines why Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bears consideration in the case, which involves a challenge to Section 5 of the act.
A Cure Worse Than The Disease?, Ellen D. Katz
A Cure Worse Than The Disease?, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
The pending challenge to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act insists the statute is no longer necessary. Should the Supreme Court agree, its ruling is likely to reflect the belief that section 5 is not only obsolete but that its requirements do more harm today than the condition it was crafted to address. In this Essay, Professor Ellen D. Katz examines why the Court might liken section 5 to a destructive treatment and why reliance on that analogy in the pending case threatens to leave the underlying condition unaddressed and Congress without the power to address it.