Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Blame (1)
- Coercion (1)
- Competence (1)
- Compulsion (1)
-
- Conditional offers (1)
- Conditional spending (1)
- Confrontation clause (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Delling v. Idaho (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Health care (1)
- Justice Anthony Kennedy (1)
- Medicaid (1)
- Mental disorder (1)
- Obamacare (1)
- Originalism (1)
- Plea bargaining (1)
- Practical federalism (1)
- Punishment (1)
- Responsibility (1)
- Right to counsel (1)
- Right to trial by jury (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Unconstitutional conditions (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Justice Kennedy's Sixth Amendment Pragmatism, Stephanos Bibas
Justice Kennedy's Sixth Amendment Pragmatism, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
This essay, written as part of a symposium on the evolution of Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence, surveys three areas of criminal procedure under the Sixth Amendment: sentence enhancements, the admissibility of hearsay, and the regulation of defense counsel’s responsibilities. In each area, Justice Kennedy has been a notable voice of pragmatism, focusing not on bygone analogies to the eighteenth century but on a hard-headed appreciation of the twenty-first. He has shown sensitivity to modern criminal practice, prevailing professional norms, and practical constraints, as befits a Justice who came to the bench with many years of private-practice experience. His touchstone is not …
Alexander's Genius, Mitchell N. Berman
Abolition Of The Insanity Defense Violates Due Process, Stephen J. Morse, Richard J. Bonnie
Abolition Of The Insanity Defense Violates Due Process, Stephen J. Morse, Richard J. Bonnie
All Faculty Scholarship
This article, which is based on and expands on an amicus brief the authors submitted to the United States Supreme Court, first provides the moral argument in favor of the insanity defense. It considers and rejects the most important moral counterargument and suggests that jurisdictions have considerable leeway in deciding what test best meets their legal and moral policies. The article then discusses why the two primary alternatives to the insanity defense, the negation of mens rea and considering mental disorder at sentencing, are insufficient to achieve the goal of responding justly to severely mentally disordered offenders. The last section …
On What Distinguishes New Originalism From Old: A Jurisprudential Take, Mitchell N. Berman
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
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 …