Legal History Commons^™

Quiescent Sovereignty Of U.S. Territories, Michael J. Kelly

Marquette Law Review

Under modern democratic theory, the font of sovereignty springs from the people; however, traces of its past as a power emanating from the Crown continue to haunt the domestic and international status of sub-sovereign legal entities such as U.S. Territories. Quiescent sovereignty describes that which is possessed by the people of the Territories; a sovereignty that is theirs, but that is wielded on their behalf by the federal government. Although fiduciary responsibilities attach to this arrangement, cycles of attention/neglect are the modus vivendi. Bilateral relationships between the Territories and the federal government are varied, but such differences should not impact …

The Original Meaning Of "God": Using The Language Of The Framing Generation To Create A Coherent Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Michael I. Meyerson

Marquette Law Review

The Supreme Court’s attempt to create a standard for evaluating whether the Establishment Clause is violated by religious governmental speech, such as the public display of the Ten Commandments or the Pledge of Allegiance, is a total failure. The Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been termed “convoluted,” “a muddled mess,” and “a polite lie.” Unwilling to either allow all governmental religious speech or ban it entirely, the Court is in need of a coherent standard for distinguishing the permissible from the unconstitutional. Thus far, no Justice has offered such a standard.

A careful reading of the history of the framing …

Reviving Legislative Generality, Evan C. Zoldan

Marquette Law Review

The Supreme Court does not recognize a constitutional principle disfavoring special legislation, that is, legislation that singles out identifiable individuals for benefits or harms that are not applied to the rest of the population. As a result, both Congress and state legislatures routinely enact special legislation despite the fact that it has been linked to a variety of social harms, including corruption and the exacerbation of social inequality. But the Court’s weak protections against special legislation, and the resulting harms, are not inevitable. Instead, special legislation can be limited by what may be called a value of legislative generality, that …