Law Commons^™

The Federal Question Jurisdiction Under Article Iii: “First In The Minds Of The Framers,” But Today, Perhaps, Falling Short Of The Framers’ Expectations, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

As Chief Justice Marshall explained, “the primary motive” for creating a “judicial department” for the new national government was “the desire of having a [national] tribunal for the decision of all national questions.” Thus, although Article III of the Constitution lists nine kinds of “Cases” and “Controversies” to which the “judicial Power” of the United States “shall extend,” “the objects which stood first in the minds of the framers” were the cases “arising under” the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Today we refer to this as the federal question jurisdiction.

Of all federal question cases, the Framers …

Keeping Pace: The U.S. Supreme Court And Evolving Technology, Brian Thomas

Politics Summer Fellows

Contemporary mainstream discussions of the Supreme Court are often qualified with the warning that the nine justices are out of touch with everyday American life, especially when it comes to the newest and most popular technologies. For instance, during oral argument for City of Ontario v. Quon, a 2010 case that dealt with sexting on government-issued devices, Chief Justice John Roberts famously asked what the difference was “between email and a pager,” and Justice Antonin Scalia wondered if the “spicy little conversations” held via text message could be printed and distributed. While these comments have garnered a great deal of …

Entering Liberty's Refuge (Some Assembly Required) Panel Discussion On Engaging Liberty's Refuge: Introduction, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

This brief discussion of a book I greatly admire, by an author I am fortunate to know as a colleague and a friend, cannot hope to capture all of the book’s important and interesting contributions. I will simply describe three of the book’s primary facets. Liberty’s Refuge is, first, a work of intellectual history: Inazu seeks to recover from history’s tall grass a legally respected Anglo-American tradition of assembly. The book is also a work of constitutional interpretation and legal analysis: Inazu aims to revitalize the right of assembly for our time, critiquing the legal decisions that he sees as …

Pluralism And Public Legal Reason, Lawrence B. Solum

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And The Other Constitution, Michael Kent Curtis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this article, Professor Michael Kent Curtis examines how laws that shape the distribution of wealth intersect with and affect popular sovereignty and free speech and press. He presents this discussion in the context of the effect of the Other Constitution on The Constitution. Professor Curtis begins by taking a close-up look at the current campaign finance system and the concentration of media ownership in a few corporate bodies and argues that both affect the way in which various political issues are presented to the public, if at all. Professor Curtis continues by talking about the origins of our constitutional …

Recalibrating The Cost Of Harm Advocacy: Getting Beyond Brandenburg, S. Elizabeth Wilborn Malloy, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Moral Failure Of The Clear And Present Danger Test, David R. Dow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The clear and present danger test has been used for almost a century to determine the speech the government may restrain. This test assumes that at some point speech transforms into an act and at that moment the speech becomes punishable. Under the clear and present danger test, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is an incitement to imminent lawless action. Professor Dow suggests that the clear and present danger test protects too little speech. He posits that speech should be protected unless the following three conditions are met: (1) the speaker's specific intent in uttering the words …

Justice Or Injustice For The Poor?: A Look At The Constitutionality Of Congressional Restrictions On Legal Services, J. Dwight Yoder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Upon enacting the Legal Services Corporation Act in 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which provides federal funding to grantees that perform legal services for low-income individuals. In recent years, Congress has enacted restrictions upon grantees' receipt of such federal funding, limiting the legal services these legal aid attorneys can provide to their clients. This move has sparked great debate. Proponents of the restrictions argue that they are needed to correct abuse and misuse of the legal services program, while opponents argue that the restrictions only harm low-income individuals.

In this Note, the author addresses this controversial issue …

Freedom Of Speech And The Flag Anti-Desecration Amendment: Antinomies Of Constitutional Choice, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Graphic Review Of The Free Speech Clause, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.