Constitutional Law Commons^™

Reconciling Positivism And Realism: Kelsen And Habermas On Democracy And Human Rights, David Ingram

Philosophy: Faculty Publications and Other Works

It is well known that Hans Kelsen and Jürgen Habermas invoke realist arguments drawn from social science in defending an international, democratic human rights regime against Carl Schmitt’s attack on the rule of law. However, despite embracing the realist spirit of Kelsen’s legal positivism, Habermas criticizes Kelsen for neglecting to connect the rule of law with a concept of procedural justice (Part I). I argue, to the contrary (Part II), that Kelsen does connect these terms, albeit in a manner that may be best described as functional, rather than conceptual. Indeed, whereas Habermas tends to emphasize a conceptual connection between …

Taney’S Zeno And Scalia’S Mobilia, Peter Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Zeno’s most famous paradox (of motion) is related to us through Aristotle, who presents Zeno’s ‘problems’ in his Physics, 239b11-14. Aristotle “asserts (on Zeno’s behalf) the non-existence of motion on the ground that any object in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.”

The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In United States Supreme Court Opinions, Peter Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

OCL surveys United States Supreme Court cases from 1791 to 1900 for deployment of the phrase stare decisis in opinions and published arguments before the Court. The people, as Madison conceded, make their own precedents by approving (prior) official action taken by current officials as a foundation for resolving issues-of-the-day.

E Pluribus Unum: Liberalism's March To Be The Singular Influence On Civil Rights At The Supreme Court, Aaron J. Shuler

Aaron J Shuler

Rogers Smith writes that American political culture can best be understood as a blend of liberal, republican and illiberal ascriptive ideologies. The U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence has largely reflected this thesis. While the Court moved away from permitting laws that explicitly construct hierarchies in the 20th century and made tepid references to egalitarian principles during the Warren Court, liberalism has prevailed in the majority of the Court’s decisions. Gains in civil rights through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process clauses were achieved primarily through liberal notions of de-regulation, a market economy and individual freedom. Conversely, State …

Neoliberalism And The Law: How Historical Materialism Can Illuminate Recent Governmental And Judicial Decision Making, Justin Schwartz

Justin Schwartz

Neoliberalism can be understood as the deregulation of the economy from political control by deliberate action or inaction of the state. As such it is both constituted by the law and deeply affects it. I show how the methods of historical materialism can illuminate this phenomenon in all three branches of the the U.S. government. Considering the example the global financial crisis of 2007-08 that began with the housing bubble developing from trade in unregulated and overvalued mortgage backed securities, I show how the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which established a firewall between commercial and investment banking, allowed this …

Book Review, Tom Ginsburg, Ed., Comparative Constitutional Design, Cameron C. Russell

Cameron C Russell

No abstract provided.

Democratic Objection Against Judicial Review Of Legislation. Institutional Design Alternatives And Constitutional Theories, Sergio Verdugo Sverdugor@Udd.Cl

Sergio Verdugo R.

This article reviews the argument through which judicial review of legislation approved by popularly elected bodies, based on the authority of judges who are in a position of preeminence on the other branches of government, is contrary to democracy. Taking Jeremy Waldron´s argument as a central reference, the author discusses some of the assumptions on which the democratic objection of judicial review is elaborated. He argues that separating the notion of constitutional supremacy from the idea of judicial supremacy would allow building a model that overcomes the democratic problem. The author reviews some alternatives provided by institutional designs, and analyses …

Structural Overdelegation In Criminal Procedure, Anthony O'Rourke

Journal Articles

In function, if not in form, criminal procedure is a type of delegation. It requires courts to select constitutional objectives, and to decide how much discretionary authority to allocate to law enforcement officials in order to implement those objectives. By recognizing this process for what it is, this Article identifies a previously unseen phenomenon that inheres in the structure of criminal procedure decision-making.

Criminal procedure’s decision-making structure, this Article argues, pressures the Supreme Court to delegate more discretionary authority to law enforcement officials than the Court’s constitutional objectives can justify. By definition, this systematic “overdelegation” does not result from the …

Originalism And The Unwritten Constitution, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In his book, America’s Unwritten Constitution, Akhil Reed Amar contends that to properly engage the written Constitution, scholars and laymen alike must look to extratextual sources: among them America’s founding documents, institutional practices, and ethos, all of which constitute Amar’s “unwritten Constitution.” In this article, the author argues that contemporary originalist constitutional theory is consistent with reliance on extraconstitutional sources in certain circumstances. He establishes a framework for revaluating the use of extratextual sources. That framework categorizes extratextual sources and explains their relevance to constitutional interpretation (the meaning of the text) and constitutional construction (elaboration of constitutional doctrine and …

Originalism And Constitutional Construction, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Constitutional interpretation is the activity that discovers the communicative content or linguistic meaning of the constitutional text. Constitutional construction is the activity that determines the legal effect given the text, including doctrines of constitutional law and decisions of constitutional cases or issues by judges and other officials. The interpretation-construction distinction, frequently invoked by contemporary constitutional theorists and rooted in American legal theory in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, marks the difference between these two activities.

This article advances two central claims about constitutional construction. First, constitutional construction is ubiquitous in constitutional practice. The central warrant for this claim is conceptual: …

Communicative Content And Legal Content, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay investigates a familiar set of questions about the relationship between legal texts (e.g., constitutions, statutes, opinions, orders, and contracts) and the content of the law (e.g., norms, rules, standards, doctrines, and mandates). Is the original meaning of the constitutional text binding on the Supreme Court when it develops doctrines of constitutional law? Should statutes be given their plain meaning or should judges devise statutory constructions that depart from the text to serve a purpose? What role should default rules play in the interpretation and construction of contracts? This essay makes two moves that can help lawyers and legal …

Alexander's Genius, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

International Law And The Domestic Separation Of Powers, Jean Galbraith

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Pluralistic Nonoriginalism And The Combinability Problem, Mitchell N. Berman, Kevin Toh

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

On What Distinguishes New Originalism From Old: A Jurisprudential Take, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Coercion, Compulsion, And The Medicaid Expansion: A Study In The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act produced three main holdings concerning two critical provisions of the Act. The first two holdings concerned the “individual mandate” that requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance. The third holding concerned “the Medicaid expansion,” which expanded the class of persons to whom the states must provide Medicaid coverage as a condition for receiving federal funds under the Medicaid program. By a vote of 7-2, the Court struck down this provision as an impermissible condition on …

Table Annexed To Article: The Doctrine Of Stare Decisis In United States Supreme Court Opinions, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

OCL surveys United States Supreme Court cases from 1791 to 1900 for deployment of the phrase stare decisis in opinions and published arguments before the Court. The people, as Madison conceded, make their own precedents by approving (prior) official action taken by current officials as a foundation for resolving issues-of-the-day.

Table Annexed To Article: James Madison’S ‘Imperfections Of Language’, Peter J. Aschenbrenner

Peter J. Aschenbrenner

No abstract provided.