Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- File Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Legislation
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Charles H. Baron
In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state constitution’s Common Benefits Clause prohibits the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage. Baker has been praised by constitutional scholars as a prototypical example of the New Judicial Federalism. The authors agree, asserting that the decision sets a standard for constitutional discourse by dint of the manner in which each of the opinions connects and responds to the others, pulls together arguments from other state and federal constitutional authorities, and provides a clear basis for subsequent development of constitutional principle. This Article explores …
Inside The Civil Rights Ring: Statutory Jabs And Constitutional Haymakers, Aaron J. Shuler
Inside The Civil Rights Ring: Statutory Jabs And Constitutional Haymakers, Aaron J. Shuler
Aaron J Shuler
Civil rights litigators use statutory and constitutional attacks to combat inequality. Each approach has its advantages and drawbacks developed through interpretation by U.S. courts. The first major decision that shaped modern civil rights was the Civil Rights Cases that dodged a constitutional attack to withdraw most private acts of discrimination out of reach until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and validated in Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. In addition to the coupling of statutory attacks with private discrimination and constitutional challenges to state biases, statutory attacks have proven to be more adept at addressing disparate impacts as …
The Puzzling Resistance To Judicial Review Of The Legislative Process, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov
The Puzzling Resistance To Judicial Review Of The Legislative Process, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov
Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov
Should courts have the power to examine the legislature’s enactment process and strike down statutes enacted contrary to procedural lawmaking requirements? This idea remains highly controversial. While substantive judicial review is well-established and often taken for granted, many judges and scholars see judicial review of the legislative process as utterly objectionable. This Article challenges that prevalent position and establishes the case for judicial review of the legislative process. The Article contends that, ironically, some of the major arguments for substantive judicial review in constitutional theory, and even the arguments in Marbury v. Madison itself, are actually more persuasive when applied …
The Unexceptionalism Of Evolving Standards, Corinna Barrett Lain
The Unexceptionalism Of Evolving Standards, Corinna Barrett Lain
Corinna Lain
Conventional wisdom is that outside the Eighth Amendment context, the Supreme Court does not engage in the sort of explicitly majoritarian state nose-counting for which the “evolving standards of decency” doctrine is famous. Yet this impression is simply inaccurate. Across a stunning variety of civil liberties contexts, the Court routinely—and explicitly—bases constitutional protection on whether a majority of states agree with it. This Article examines the Supreme Court’s reliance on the majority position of the states to identify constitutional norms, then turns to the qualifications, explanations, and implications of state polling as a larger doctrinal phenomenon. While the past few …