Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Presidential Popular Constitutionalism, Jedidiah Purdy
Presidential Popular Constitutionalism, Jedidiah Purdy
Fordham Law Review
This Article adds a new dimension to the most important and influential strand of recent constitutional theory: popular or democratic constitutionalism, the investigation into how the U.S. Constitution is interpreted (1) as a set of defining national commitments and practices, not necessarily anchored in the text of the document, and (2) by citizens and elected politicians outside the judiciary. Wide-ranging and ground-breaking scholarship in this area has neglected the role of the President as a popular constitutional interpreter, articulating and revising normative accounts of the nation that interact dynamically with citizens’ constitutional understandings. This Article sets out a “grammar” of …
Berkemer Revisited: Uncovering The Middle Ground Between Miranda And The New Terry, Michael J. Roth
Berkemer Revisited: Uncovering The Middle Ground Between Miranda And The New Terry, Michael J. Roth
Fordham Law Review
Over the past twenty-five years, appellate courts have significantly expanded the scope of police authority to stop and frisk potential suspects without probable cause, a power originally granted to law enforcement by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio. This development has led Terry’s once limited licensing of police searches to run into conflict with a defendant’s right against compulsory self-incrimination while in police custody, as articulated by Miranda v. Arizona. This Note explores the contours of this unforeseen collision between two core constitutional doctrines and the solutions generated by appellate courts to resolve the conflict. Courts today are generally …
Toward A Duty-Based Theory Of Executive Power, David M. Driesen
Toward A Duty-Based Theory Of Executive Power, David M. Driesen
Fordham Law Review
This article develops a duty-based theory of executive power. This theory maintains that the Constitution seeks to instill a duty in all executive branch officers to faithfully execute the law. Conversely, the Constitution’s Framers and Ratifiers did not intend to empower the President to distinctively shape the law to suit his policy preferences or those of his party. Rather, they envisioned a model of “disinterested leadership” serving rule-of-law values. Because of the Ratifiers’ and Framers’ interest in preventing abuse of executive power, the Constitution obligates executive branch officials to disobey illegal presidential directives and creates a major congressional role in …
Answering Justice Scalia's Question: Dual Sovereignty And The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel After Texas V. Cobb And Montejo V. Louisiana, Ryan M. Yanovich
Answering Justice Scalia's Question: Dual Sovereignty And The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel After Texas V. Cobb And Montejo V. Louisiana, Ryan M. Yanovich
Fordham Law Review
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Texas v. Cobb in 2001, eight courts of appeals have rached divergent conclusions as to the scope and extent of a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he is being prosecuted by multiple sovereigns, including, most recently, the U.S. Court of appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 2008. Invariably, each circuit court purports to draw conclusive support for its holding from the plain language of Cobb. The conflict among the circuits reveals a tension between the courts; desire to balance fundamental individual and legitimate state interests, achieve uniformity and consistency in the …
Reconciling Classified Evidence And A Petitioner's Right To A "Meaningful Review" At Guantanamo Bay: A Legislative Solution, Sarah Lorr
Fordham Law Review
In Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right to a writ of habeas corpus and are entitled to a “meaningful review” of their habeas petitions. This Note attempts to reconcile the need for a “meaningful review” with the government’s reliance on classified evidence that is completely inaccessible to the detainee-petitioners. After examining three other contexts in which the reliance on classified evidence has been sanctioned—federal criminal courts, immigration cases, and the ongoing military commissions at Guantánamo—this Note concludes that a “meaningful review” of the Guantánamo habeas petitions requires …