Law Commons^™

Vice Presidential Immunity In The Age Of Impeachment: A Fresh Look At The Agnew Precedent, Mark E. Coon

ConLawNOW

Since the 1973 prosecution of incumbent Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken the position that sitting Vice Presidents are not constitutionally immune from criminal prosecution in the same way that sitting Presidents are. With the modern rise of prosecution and impeachment as weapons in the political arsenal, the Agnew precedent threatens to upset the constitutional balance of power because it makes Vice Presidents easily removable. This essay argues that the Agnew precedent is incorrect and that Vice Presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution while in office because of the Vice Presidency’s role ...

Rfra As Legislative Entrenchment, Branden Lewiston

Pepperdine Law Review

When there is a conflict between two federal statutes, the more recent statute overrides the past statute. However, courts have used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to preempt federal laws passed after it. Normally that is the role of constitutional provisions, not statutes. RFRA has been subject to much constitutional criticism, but its attempt to control subsequent federal law has drawn little attention. Courts use RFRA to trump subsequent federal statutes without second thought. This Essay draws on legislative entrenchment doctrine to argue that this feature of RFRA is unconstitutional. RFRA should be used to strike down prior laws ...

Standing Under State Search And Seizure Provision: Why The Minnesota Supreme Court Should Have Rejected The Federal Standards And Instead Invoked Greater Protection Under Its Own Constitution In State V. Carter, Rebecca C. Garrett

Maine Law Review

In State v. Carter, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a criminal defendant had “standing” to challenge an alleged search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer who had peered in the window of an apartment where the defendant was participating in a drug-packaging operation with the apartment's leaseholder. A divided court held that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment. Therefore, the defendant had standing to challenge the legality of the police officer's observations pursuant to ...

Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein

Maine Law Review

The editors of the Maine Law Review have been kind enough to offer me the opportunity to respond to Laura Underkuffler's criticism of my work in her recent Godfrey Lecture, “When Should Rights ‘Trump’? An Examination of Speech and Property,” which appears in the preceding issue. In my earlier writings on constitutional law, more specifically, in my paper, Property, Speech and the Politics of Distrust, I took the position that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence had taken a turn for the worse insofar as it used different standards of review in passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The current position ...

The Affordable Care Act And The Chronic Challenge Of Cost Control, Isaac D. Buck

University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Tax Constitutional Questions In Obamacare Continued: Nfib V. Sebelius In Light Of Citizens United V. Fec, Speiser V. Randall, Windsor V. United States, Lawrence V. Texas, Et Al., John R. Dorocak

University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Precedent And Constitutional Structure, Randy J. Kozel

Northwestern University Law Review

The Constitution does not talk about precedent, at least not explicitly, but several of its features suggest a place for deference to prior decisions. It isolates the judicial function and insulates federal courts from official and electoral control, promoting a vision of impersonality and continuity. It charges courts with applying a charter that is vague and ambiguous in important respects. And it was enacted at a time when prominent thinkers were already discussing the use of precedent to channel judicial discretion.

Taken in combination, these features make deference to precedent a sound inference from the Constitution’s structure, text, and ...

Dual Residents: A Sur-Reply To Zelinsky, Michael S. Knoll, Ruth Mason

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, we respond to Professor Zelinsky’s criticism of our arguments regarding the constitutionality of New York’s tax residence rule. We argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wynne requires reconsideration of the New York Court of Appeal’s decision in Tamagni.

Rethinking The Dormant Commerce Clause?: Climate Change And Food Security, Michael Barsa

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Precedent And Constitutional Structure, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

The Constitution does not talk about precedent, at least not explicitly, but several of its features suggest a place for deference to prior decisions. It isolates the judicial function and insulates federal courts from official and electoral control, promoting a vision of impersonality and continuity. It charges courts with applying a charter that is vague and ambiguous in important respects. And it was enacted at a time when prominent thinkers were already discussing the use of precedent to channel judicial discretion. Taken in combination, these features make deference to precedent a sound inference from the Constitution’s structure, text, and ...

Puerto Rico And The Right Of Accession, Joseph Blocher, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

On June 11, 2017, Puerto Rico held a referendum on its legal status. Although turnout was low, 97% of ballots favored statehood, rather than independence or the status quo. The federal government, however, has financial and political reasons to resist this preference: Puerto Rico would bring with it a massive, unpayable debt, and the potential to swing the current balance of power in Congress.

The tension between Puerto Rico’s possible desire to pull closer to the mainland and Congress’s presumptive desire to hold it at arm’s length raises at least two important legal questions. Could Congress expel ...

Free Speech And Generally Applicable Laws: A New Doctrinal Synthesis, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

A longstanding mystery of constitutional law concerns how the Free Speech Clause interacts with “generally applicable” legal restrictions. This Article develops a new conceptual framework for working through this puzzle. It does so by extracting from prior Supreme Court rulings an approach that divides these restrictions into three separate categories, each of which (at least presumptively) brings into play a different level of judicial scrutiny. An example of the first and most closely scrutinized category of generally applicable laws—that is, laws that place a “direct in effect” burden on speech—is provided by breach-of-the-peace statutes. These laws are generally ...

Sustaining Collective Self-Governance And Collective Action: A Constitutional Role Morality For Presidents And Members Of Congress, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

In the United States today, the behavior of the political branches is generally viewed as more damaging to the American constitutional system than is the behavior of the federal courts. Yet constitutional law scholarship continues to focus primarily on judges and judging. This Article suggests that such scholarship should develop for presidents and members of Congress what it has long advocated for judges: a role morality that imposes normative limits on the exercise of official discretion over and above strictly legal limits. The Article first grounds a role morality for federal elected officials in two purposes of the U.S ...

Formal And Informal Constitutional Amendment Of The United States Constitution, Richard S. Kay

Richard Kay

Due Process Abroad, Nathan Chapman

Scholarly Works

Defining the scope of the Constitution’s application outside U.S. territory is more important than ever. This month the Supreme Court will hear oral argument about whether the Constitution applies when a U.S. officer shoots a Mexican child across the border. Meanwhile the federal courts are scrambling to evaluate the constitutionality of an Executive Order that, among other things, deprives immigrants of their right to reenter the United States. Yet the extraterritorial reach of the Due Process Clause — the broadest constitutional limit on the government’s authority to deprive persons of “life, liberty, and property” — remains obscure. Up ...

Alexis De Tocqueville And American Constitutional Law: On Democracy, The Majority Will, Individual Rights, Federalism, Religion, Civic Associations And Originalist Constitutional Theory, Philip C. Kissam

Maine Law Review

Count Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America has been said to be "at once the best book ever written on democracy and the best book ever written on America. " This praise should perhaps be tempered by consideration of Tocqueville' s purposes and the historical circumstances within which he worked and understood both democracy and America. Yet Tocqueville's insights into American democracy as of the 1830s undoubtedly constitute a rich source of constitutional thought-either as support for particular constitutional principles or as constitutional ideas that should be contested. In a recent notable instance, John McGinnis has argued that Tocqueville ...

The Collapse Of The New Deal Conceptual Universe: The Schmooze Project, Mark A. Graber

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Comparative Study Of The Jewish And The United States Constitutional Law Of Capital Punishment, Steven Davidoff

Steven Davidoff Solomon

The Jewish view on the death penalty is that it should exist but it should never be used .... [lI]t is Governor Pataki's job to ensure :order. But he must remember that as a leader he must exhibit attributes of both the father and the mother. Governor Pataki is a nice man. But if he acts on the death penalty, he will be the leader of a bloody government

Balancing Security And Liberty In Germany, Russell A. Miller

Russell A. Miller

Scholarly discourse over America’s national security policy frequently invites comparison with Germany’s policy. Interest in Germany’s national security jurisprudence arises because, like the United States, Germany is a constitutional democracy. Yet, in contrast to the United States, Germany’s historical encounters with violent authoritarian, anti-democratic, and terrorist movements have endowed it with a wealth of constitutional experience in balancing security and liberty. The first of these historical encounters – with National Socialism – provided the legacy against which Germany’s post-World War II constitutional order is fundamentally defined. The second encounter – with leftist domestic radicalism in the 1970s and ...

Racial And Ethnic Profiling: Statutory Discretion, Constitutional Remedies, And Democratic Accountability, Sujit Choudhry, Kent Roach

Sujit Choudhry

Given the prominence of the issue of racial, ethnic, and religious profiling in the public debate about terrorism, it is significant that Canada's two legislative responses to September 11 - the Anti-terrorism Act and the proposed Public Safety Act - are silent on the issue, neither explicitly authorizing profiling nor expressly banning it. In this article, we focus on the constitutional remedies available for profiling in the face of these statutory silences, and the implication that the choice of remedies holds for both remedial efficacy and democratic accountability. Contrary to the position held by the majority of the Supreme Court in ...

Hate Speech Debate Has Roots In Us History, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

No abstract provided.

Hate Speech And The First Amendment, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

This Is Why We Protect Hate Speech, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

Justice Scalia As Neither Friend Nor Foe To Criminal Defendants, Tung Yin

Akron Law Review

At first glance, Justice Scalia may appear to have been something of a “friend” to criminal defendants, as he authored a number of opinions ruling against law enforcement. However, his opinions reflect his fidelity to his constitutional vision of originalism rather than an intent to favor criminal defendants. Nevertheless, these cases are often offered as legitimate examples of how he did not have a purely results-oriented approach to deciding criminal procedure issues. Yet, a closer examination of Justice Scalia’s “defendant-favorable” opinions suggests that the results often have an air of unreality to them. In practice, there is no way ...

The Blessing Of Separating Church And State, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Advice And Consent Vs. Silence And Dissent? The Contrasting Roles Of The Legislature In U.S. And U.K. Judicial Appointments, Mary L. Clark

Mary L. Clark

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights Remedies In Higher Education: Jurisprudential Limitations And Lost Moments In Time, Lia Epperson

Lia Epperson

No abstract provided.

For Legal Principles, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship

Most legal thinkers believe that legal rules and legal principles are meaningfully distinguished. Many jurists may have no very precise distinction in mind, and those who do might not all agree. But it is widely believed that legal norms come in different logical types, and that one difference is reasonably well captured by a nomenclature that distinguishes “rules” from “principles.” Larry Alexander is the foremost challenger to this bit of legal-theoretic orthodoxy. In several articles, but especially in “Against Legal Principles,” an influential article co-authored with Ken Kress two decades ago, Alexander has argued that legal principles cannot exist.

In ...

Finding Justice, Laurie L. Levenson

ConLawNOW

In this essay memoralizing remarks presented on Constitution Day, Professor Laurie Levenson reflects on her transition from federal prosecutor to defense attorney as founder of Loyola Law School’s Project for the Innocent. She recounts the stories of two clients freed by the work of the Project. She then discusses how this work revealed blind faith in the Constitution is not enough to ensure that only the guilty are convicted. We need to do better. Levenson argues that we need to realize that constitutional rights only protect individuals if both prosecutors and defense lawyers want those rights to work. A ...

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.