Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Blame (1)
- Carolene Products (1)
- Competence (1)
- Constitutional authority (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
-
- Constitutional law (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Delling v. Idaho (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Footnote Four (1)
- Mental disorder (1)
- New Originalism (1)
- Originalism (1)
- Punishment (1)
- Randy Barnett (1)
- Responsibility (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- United States Constitution (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
What Lies Beneath: Interpretive Methodology, Constitutional Authority, And The Case Of Originalism, Christopher J. Peters
What Lies Beneath: Interpretive Methodology, Constitutional Authority, And The Case Of Originalism, Christopher J. Peters
All Faculty Scholarship
It is a remarkable fact of American constitutional practice that we cannot agree on a methodology of constitutional interpretation. What can explain our disagreement? Is it the product of a deeper, principled dispute about the meaning of constitutional law? Or is it just a veneer – a velvet curtain obscuring what is really a back-room brawl over political outcomes?
This Article suggests that these, in essence, are the only viable possibilities. Either we disagree about interpretation because we disagree (or are confused) about constitutional authority – about why the Constitution binds us in the first place; or we disagree because …
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 …