Constitutional Law Commons^™

Are Handguns A Matter Of Privacy?, Bret N. Bogenschneider

St. Mary's Law Journal

The thesis developed in this Article is that the Heller and Bruen cases involved primarily right-to-privacy concerns. By its terms, the Second Amendment involves the collective right to bear Arms in connection to regulated militia service and does not mention handguns. Handguns were not “ordinary military weapons” employed by a militia at the time of the American revolution under the originalist view. The Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments are more appropriate sources for an individual privacy right related to the possession of handguns for private purposes, such as for self-defense or suicide. However, a prohibition of handguns under this approach would …

The American Tradition Of Self-Made Arms, Joseph G.S. Greenlee

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Dark Side Of Due Process: Part Iii, How To Use Irreverent Double-Talk To Speak Back To Bad Men, Joshua J. Schroeder

St. Mary's Law Journal

Most American lawyers take for granted that the common law established almost all the ordinary causes of action we know today. As Joseph Story’s Commentaries acknowledged, the common law is the basis of the entire U.S. system of law. Common law struggled with feudal and canon forms and eventually transformed them for the benefit of ordinary people even in the face of the most heinous travesties of the English and American past.

The Witch Judges of Salem, Massachusetts and the Parliament of Saints in England did not prevail through despotic radicalism to demolish the common law through codification. Legal positivism …

Answering The Call: A History Of The Emergency Power Doctrine In Texas And The United States, P. Elise Mclaren

St. Mary's Law Journal

During times of emergency, national and local government may be allowed to take otherwise impermissible action in the interest of health, safety, or national security. The prerequisites and limits to this power, however, are altogether unknown. Like the crises they aim to deflect, courts’ modern emergency power doctrines range from outright denial of any power of constitutional circumvention to their flagrant use. Concededly, courts’ approval of emergency powers has provided national and local government opportunities to quickly respond to emergency without pause for constituency approval, but how can one be sure the availability of autocratic power will not be abused? …

Judicial Federalism And The Appropriate Role Of The State Supreme Courts: A 20-Year (2000–2020) Study Of These Courts’ Interest Evaluations Of The Fruits And The Attenuation Doctrines, Dannye R. Holley Mr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

The current composition of the United States Supreme Court increases the probability that the Court will be more likely to side with the government with respect to identifying, evaluating, and reconciling the interest of the government versus those of the people when issues of “policing” reach the high court. This opens the door for state supreme court to independently assess individually and collectively these seemingly competing interests and potentially provide greater protections to the interest of the people.

This Article is a twenty-year study of dozens of state supreme court decisions made during the period of 2000–2020. The decisions focused …

The Militia: A Definition And Litmus Test, Marcus Armstrong

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States Supreme Court, in its decision in Perpich v. Department of Defense, ruled that members of the National Guard are “troops” as that word is used in the Constitution. In doing so, the Court negated a long-standing, but obsolete, definition of the militia. However, this move away from an obsolete definition of the militia posed considerable difficulties that the Court was unable to rectify in its Perpich decision. In this Article, the author hopes to help rectify these difficulties by proposing four necessary characteristics that define the militia: first, the militia is a military force; second, the …

“We” The Jury: The Problem Of Peremptory Strikes As Illustrated By Flowers V. Mississippi, Kayley A. Viteo

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Peña-Rodriguez V. Colorado: Carving Out A Racial-Bias Exception To The No-Impeachment Rule, John Austin Morales

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Sixth Amendment safeguards an accused in criminal proceedings and affords them “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Consistent with this right, the no-impeachment rule prohibits a juror from testifying after a verdict has been handed down about the jurors’ deliberations. While there are limited exceptions to the no-impeachment rule, juror expressed racial bias is not one of them. When presented with the dilemma of a juror using racial bias in deliberations, courts must weigh two competing doctrines that serve as the foundation to our judicial system: (1) affording a defendant his or her …

Undocumented Citizens Of The United States: The Repercussions Of Denying Birth Certificates, Anna L. Lichtenberger

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming