Law Commons^™

Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

In this Article, Professor Sharfman addresses the problem of "discretionary valuation": that courts resolve valuation disputes arbitrarily and unpredictably, thus harming litigants and society. As a solution, he proposes the enactment of "valuation averaging," a new procedure for resolving valuation disputes modeled on the algorithmic valuation processes often agreed to by sophisticated private firms in advance of any dispute. He argues that by replacing the discretion of judges and juries with a mechanical valuation process, valuation averaging would cause litigants to introduce more plausible and conciliatory valuations into evidence and thereby reduce the cost of valuation litigation and increase the …

Attitudes About Attitudes, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Property As A Fundamental Constitutional Right? The German Example, Gregory S. Alexander

Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers

This article examines an apparent paradox in comparative constitutional law. Property rights are not treated as a fundamental right in American constitutional law; they are, however, under the Basic Law (i.e., constitution) of Germany, a social-welfare state that otherwise gives less weight to property. The article uses this apparent paradox as a vehicle for considering the different reasons why constitutions protect property. It explains the difference between the German and American constitutional treatment of property on the basis of the quite different approaches taken in the two systems to the purposes of constitutional protection of property.

Quirin Revisited, A. Christopher Bryant, Carl Tobias

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In November 2001 President George W. Bush promulgated an Executive Order, premised on Ex Parte Quirin, that authorized the establishment of military commissions as well as purported to eliminate whatever jurisdiction federal courts might have by statute and to deny federal court access to individuals prosecuted or detained for terrorism. This article finds that the profound growth of federal habeas corpus over the last sixty years and the quite narrow holding in Quirin's ultimate determination must guide contemporary application of the precedent. Also, it concludes that federal courts have power not only to assess military commissions' validity in the abstract …

The Debate Over War Powers, Mark R. Shulman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Two Sides Of A "Sargasso Sea": Successive Prosecution For The "Same Offence" In The United States And The United Kingdom, Lissa Griffin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article analyzes the U. S. constitutional law interpreting the concept of “same offence.” Included is a survey of the Supreme Court's attempts to interpret constitutional text in order to provide adequate protection for the underlying double jeopardy interest against vexatious reprosecutions, which have frequently produced inconsistent and illogical results. Part III of this article analyzes U.K. law relating to the concept of “same offence,” where the same narrow double jeopardy protection adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court is supplemented with a broad discretion to prevent unfair successive prosecution that constitutes an abuse of process. Part IV draws lessons from …

The Implications Of Transition Theory For Stare Decisis, Jill E. Fisch

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Unitary Executive During The Second Half-Century, Steven G. Calabresi, Christopher S. Yoo

All Faculty Scholarship

Recent Supreme Court decisions and political events have reinvigorated the debate over Congress's authority to restrict the President's control over the administration of the law. The initial debate focused on whether the Constitutional Convention rejected the executive by committee employed by the Articles of the Confederation in favor of a unitary executive in which all administrative authority is centralized in the President. More recently, the debate has turned towards historical practices. Some scholars have suggested that independent agencies and special counsels have become such established features of the constitutional landscape as to preempt arguments in favor of the unitary executive. …

The Heart Of Federalism: Pretext Review Of Means-End Relationships, J. Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

Section I of this article seeks to correct a common scholarly misconception regarding the sort of pretext review envisioned by McCulloch v. Maryland. All students of McCulloch understand the decision to call for judicial review of the means-end relationship underlying a federal statute. But McCulloch also indicated that the Court would strike down legislation "should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government." Various constitutional scholars construe this pretext passage to contemplate a second inquiry--separate from the Court's scrutiny of means-end relationships--into whether the legislative motive behind a …

The Export Clause, Erik M. Jensen

Faculty Publications

This article examines the origins and meaning of the Export Clause in Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution, which provides that "[n]o Tax or duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

Part I of the article considers the original understanding of the Export Clause, concluding that, without the Clause, the Constitution would not have been adopted. In light of the Export Clause's significance in the constitutional structure, Part II examines the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843 (1996) (IBM), and United States v. United States Shoe …