Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Constitutional Pathology, The War On Terror, And United States V. Klein, Howard M. Wasserman
Constitutional Pathology, The War On Terror, And United States V. Klein, Howard M. Wasserman
Howard M Wasserman
In The Irrepressible Myth of Klein (UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 2010) I discuss the meaning, scope, and continued relevance of the Supreme Court's historic decision in United States v. Klein (1871), arguing that Klein is not the judicially powerful a precedent many believe it to be. In this follow-up essay, I apply the insights of my analysis and exposure of Klein’s myths to two major pieces of legislation enacted as part of the ongoing War on Terror: The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies involved in warrantless domestic surveillance) and the Military Commissions Act …
The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman
The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman
Howard M Wasserman
The Reconstruction-era case of United States v. Klein remains the object of a “cult” among commentators and advocates, who see it as a powerful separation of powers precedent. In fact, Klein is a myth—actually two related myths. One is that it is opaque and meaninglessly indeterminate because, given its confusing and disjointed language, its precise doctrinal contours are indecipherable; the other is that Klein is vigorous precedent, likely to be used by a court to invalidate likely federal legislation. Close analysis of Klein, its progeny, and past scholarship uncovers three identifiable core limitations on congressional control over the workings of …