Law Commons^™

The Political Branches And The Law Of Nations, Bradford R. Clark, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court went out of its way to follow background rules of the law of nations, particularly the law of state-state relations. As we have recently argued, the Court followed the law of nations because adherence to such law preserved the constitutional prerogatives of the political branches to conduct foreign relations and decide momentous questions of war and peace. Although we focused primarily on the extent to which the Constitution obligated courts to follow the law of nations in the early republic, the explanation we offered rested on an important, …

Is The Filibuster Constitutional?, Josh Chafetz, Michael J. Gerhardt

Josh Chafetz

With the help of the President, Democrats in Congress were able to pass historic healthcare-reform legislation in spite of - and thanks to - the significant structural obstacles presented by the Senate’s arcane parliamentary rules. After the passage of the bill, the current political climate appears to require sixty votes for the passage of any major legislation, a practice which many argue is unsustainable. In this Debate, Professors Josh Chafetz and Michael Gerhardt debate the constitutionality of the Senate’s cloture rules by looking to the history of those rules in the United States and elsewhere. Professor Chafetz argues that the …

The Unconstitutionality Of The Filibuster, Josh Chafetz

Josh Chafetz

This Article, written for the Connecticut Law Review's 2010 "Is Our Constitutional Order Broken?" symposium, argues that the filibuster, as currently practiced, is unconstitutional.

After a brief introduction in Part I, Part II describes the current operation of the filibuster. Although the filibuster is often discussed in terms of "unlimited debate," this Part argues that its current operation is best understood in terms of a sixty-vote requirement to pass most bills and other measures through the Senate.

Part III presents a structural argument that this supermajority requirement for most Senate business is unconstitutional. This Part argues that the words "passed" …

Impeachment And Assassination, Josh Chafetz

Josh Chafetz

In 1998, the conservative provocateur Ann Coulter made waves when she wrote that President Clinton should be either impeached or assassinated. Coulter was roundly - and rightly - condemned for suggesting that the murder of the President might be justified, but her conceptual linking of presidential impeachment and assassination was not entirely unfounded. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin had made the same linkage over two hundred years earlier, when he noted at the Constitutional Convention that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal - impeachment - would be preferable. …

Politics And Public Sector Employees: What's Gone Wrong With The Relationship Between Ministers And Public Servants - Why It Matters, And What Needs To Be Done To Fix It, Matthew S. R. Palmer Qc

The Hon Justice Matthew Palmer

Bruce Ledewitz, American Religious Democracy: Coming To Terms With The End Of Secular Politics, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Thomas A. Schweitzer

No abstract provided.

Situating The Core And Structure Of Experience In Constitutional Interpretation: Judicial Reasoning Under The Indian Constitution, Shubhankar Dam

Shubhankar Dam

This article is about texts: texts of legal provisions and texts of judgments. How much does the text of a legal provision tell us about its meaning? How much does a judgment tell us about the reasons for any given meaning of the text? Rather than in the abstract, the article unfolds both these questions in the context of the Indian Constitution. More specifically, it unfolds the questions in the context of an issue of great constitutional importance the Indian Supreme Court was confronted with in B. R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another. Can a person convicted …

Vineet Narain V Union Of India: A Court Of Law And Not Justice: Is The Indian Supreme Court Bound By The Indian Constitution, Shubhankar Dam

Shubhankar Dam

The last twenty five years are an “impressive” chronicle of the Indian Supreme Court in action. Its novel functioning has changed the internal dynamics of Indian polity in a manner unknown to constitutional democracies. From an institution entrusted with the task of adjudicating disputes between parties, the Indian Supreme Court has transformed itself into an institution enjoined to promote the ideals of a socio-economic and political justice. Its prior role as an “adjudicator” has undergone a reappraisal. The judges therein are no more adjudicators but activists, energetically contributing to the accomplishment of India's constitutional vision. In this new creation, they …

Is Indian Democracy Dependent On A Statute?, Shubhankar Dam

Shubhankar Dam

What is the status of a right to vote in the Indian legal system? Is the right a constitutional/fundamental right? Or is it simply a statutory right? Contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the last five decades, this paper argues that the right to vote is a constitutional right: its textual foundation may be located in Article 326. And, in this sense, the Supreme Court has erred in construing the right to vote as a statutory right under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. Interpreting the right to vote as a statutory right has larger implications for …