Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (3)
- Federal government (2)
- Alexander Bickel (1)
- Capital market (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
-
- Constitutional amendments (1)
- Constitutional law--United States. (1)
- Defense of Marriage Act (1)
- Equality before the law--United States (1)
- Gay marriage (1)
- Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund (1)
- Health insurance--Law and legislation (1)
- Hernandez v. Stephens (1)
- Interstate commerce--Law and legislation--United States. (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Offenders with mental disabilities--Legal status laws etc. (1)
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (1)
- Presidents (1)
- Race discrimination (1)
- Same-sex marriage (1)
- Securities (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- States' rights (American politics) (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Treaties (1)
- Treaties--Termination (1)
- United States (1)
- Virtues (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Social and Behavioral Sciences
The Puzzling Persistence Of Dual Federalism, Ernest A. Young
The Puzzling Persistence Of Dual Federalism, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
This essay began life as a response to Sotirios Barber’s essay (soon to be a book) entitled “Defending Dual Federalism: A Self-Defeating Act.” Professor Barber’s essay reflects a widespread tendency to associate any judicially-enforceable principle of federalism with the “dual federalism” regime that dominated our jurisprudence from the Founding down to the New Deal. That regime divided the world into separate and exclusive spheres of federal and state regulatory authority, and it tasked courts with defining and policing the boundary between them. “Dual federalism” largely died, however, in the judicial revolution of 1937, and it generally has not been revived …
Brief Of Financial Economists As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Ernest A. Young
Brief Of Financial Economists As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Public Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Ernest A. Young
Brief Of Public Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Treaty Termination And Historical Gloss, Curtis A. Bradley
Treaty Termination And Historical Gloss, Curtis A. Bradley
Faculty Scholarship
The termination of U.S. treaties provides an especially rich example of how governmental practices can provide a “gloss” on the Constitution’s separation of powers. The authority to terminate treaties is not addressed specifically in the constitutional text and instead has been worked out over time through political-branch practice. This practice, moreover, has developed largely without judicial review. Despite these features, Congress and the President—and the lawyers who advise them—have generally treated this issue as a matter of constitutional law rather than merely political happenstance. Importantly, the example of treaty termination illustrates not only how historical practice can inform constitutional understandings …
Federalism As A Way Station: Windsor As Exemplar Of Doctrine In Motion, Neil S. Siegel
Federalism As A Way Station: Windsor As Exemplar Of Doctrine In Motion, Neil S. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
This Article asks what the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Windsor stands for. It first shows that the opinion leans in the direction of marriage equality but ultimately resists any dispositive “equality” or “federalism” interpretation. The Article next examines why the opinion seems intended to preserve for itself a Delphic obscurity. The Article reads Windsor as an exemplar of what judicial opinions may look like in transition periods, when a Bickelian Court seeks to invite, not end, a national conversation, and to nudge it in a certain direction. In such times, federalism rhetoric—like manipulating the tiers of scrutiny …
None Of The Laws But One, Neil S. Siegel
None Of The Laws But One, Neil S. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
This Symposium contribution explores differences in how congressional Republicans responded to Medicare and how they responded to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Given the narrowness of the constitutional challenges to the ACA that congressional Republicans promoted and the many federal taxes, expenditures, and regulations that they support, this Article rejects the suggestion that today's Republicans in Congress generally possess a narrow view of the constitutional scope of federal power. The Article instead argues that congressional Republicans then and now-and the two parties in Congress today-fracture less over the constitutional expanse of congressional authority and more over the …