Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Putting Missouri V. Holland On The Map, Edward T. Swaine
Putting Missouri V. Holland On The Map, Edward T. Swaine
GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works
This paper, published as part of symposium on Missouri v. Holland, explores how the circumstances of that case relate to modern criticisms of Congress' Necessary and Proper power and the doctrine of non-self-executing treaties. Focusing on some of the original concerns - for example, the need for further domestic implementation by Canada (and not, to the same degree, by the United States), the need for spending legislation, and the provision of criminal penalties - unsettles not only the understanding of the Supreme Court's decision, but also more recent critiques of the doctrines with which it has long been associated.
Constitutional Change And Responsibilities Of Governance Pertaining To The Faith-Based And Community Initiative, Ira C. Lupu, Robert W. Tuttle
Constitutional Change And Responsibilities Of Governance Pertaining To The Faith-Based And Community Initiative, Ira C. Lupu, Robert W. Tuttle
GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works
This paper, commissioned and published in June 2008 in connection with the White House-sponsored Conference on Innovations in Effective Compassion, addresses the changing legal environment relevant to government partnerships with religious providers of social services. In particular, the paper maps the federal government's regulatory agenda in connection with the Faith-Based and Community Initiative (FBCI) onto the changes in constitutional law over the past several decades. After briefly surveying the key developmental points in the relevant constitutional law, the paper explores specific changes in federal regulations governing aid to religious providers of welfare services, and considers the litigation efforts that have …
Textualism And Jurisdiction, Peter J. Smith
Textualism And Jurisdiction, Peter J. Smith
GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works
Recent legislation has reinvigorated the scholarly debate over the proper relationship between Congress and the federal courts in matters of federal-court jurisdiction. The traditional view of jurisdiction-stripping is that Congress has virtually plenary power to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Others have argued that there are substantial limits on Congress's authority to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over certain matters. A similar debate has raged over the obligation of federal courts to exercise jurisdiction that Congress ostensibly has conferred. Since the debate over Congress's role in crafting a jurisdictional regime last flared in full force, textualism has …