Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Law

Constructing The Other: U.S. Muslims, Anti-Sharia Law, And The Constitutional Consequences Of Volatile Intercultural Rhetoric, Carlo A. Pedrioli Jan 2012

Constructing The Other: U.S. Muslims, Anti-Sharia Law, And The Constitutional Consequences Of Volatile Intercultural Rhetoric, Carlo A. Pedrioli

Faculty Scholarship

Recently, legislators have proposed, discussed, and passed various laws that aimed to limit the use of foreign law, international law, and Sharia (a branch of Islamic law) in state court systems. Because it became law, one proposed state constitutional amendment that rhetorically linked Sharia to foreign and international law is of particular note. In the 2010 midterm elections, Oklahoma passed State Question 755 (SQ 755), a constitutional amendment that aimed to place restrictions on the use of foreign law, international law, and Sharia in Oklahoma courts. Laws like Oklahoma’s State Question 755 are problematic for a variety of reasons ...


Subtraction By Addition?: The Thirteenth And Fourteenth Amendments, Mark A. Graber Jan 2012

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

Faculty Scholarship

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a narrower set of rights than the Thirteenth Amendment, then the proper inference may be that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or modified crucial rights originally protected by the Thirteenth Amendment.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 ...


United States V. Klein, Then And Now, Gordon G. Young Jan 2012

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

Faculty Scholarship

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 of ...


Comparative Law And International Human Rights Law: Non-Retroactivity And Lex Certa In Criminal Law, Kenneth S. Gallant Jan 2012

Comparative Law And International Human Rights Law: Non-Retroactivity And Lex Certa In Criminal Law, Kenneth S. Gallant

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Habeas Corpus, Protection, And Extraterritorial Constitutional Rights, Andrew Kent Jan 2012

Habeas Corpus, Protection, And Extraterritorial Constitutional Rights, Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

This short essay is an exchange with Professor Steve Vladeck's about my Article entitled: Boumediene, Munaf, and the Supreme Court’s Misreading of the Insular Cases, 97 Iowa Law Review 101 (2011). My Article showed that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Boumediene v. Bush relied on a demonstrably incorrect understanding of key precedents known as the Insular Cases, which arose from actions of the United States military and the new civil governments of the islands acquired by the United States at the turn of the twentieth century — Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii, and for a time Cuba ...


Unconstitutional Conditions: The Irrelevance Of Consent, Philip A. Hamburger Jan 2012

Unconstitutional Conditions: The Irrelevance Of Consent, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Unconstitutional conditions are a conundrum. On the one hand, if government can spend, why can't it place whatever conditions it wants on its spending? On the other hand, if it can place any conditions on spending, won't it be able to impose restrictions that evade much of the Constitution, including most constitutional rights? This enigma is notoriously complex, and unconstitutional conditions therefore are considered a sort of Gordian knot.

The standard solution is to slice through the knot with consent to conclude that consent excuses otherwise unconstitutional restrictions. This solution, however, is problematic, for it concedes that the ...