American Politics Commons^™

Congressional Oversight Of Modern Warfare: History, Pathologies, And Proposals For Reform, Oona A. Hathaway, Tobias Kuehne, Randi Michel, Nicole Ng

William & Mary Law Review

Despite significant developments in the nature of twenty-first century warfare, Congress continues to employ a twentieth century oversight structure. Modern warfare tactics, including cyber operations, drone strikes, and special operations, do not neatly fall into congressional committee jurisdictions. Counterterrorism and cyber operations, which are inherently multi-jurisdictional and highly classified, illustrate the problem. In both contexts, over the past several years Congress has addressed oversight shortcomings by strengthening its reporting requirements, developing relatively robust oversight regimes. But in solving one problem, Congress has created another: deeply entrenched information silos that inhibit the sharing of information about modern warfare across committees. This …

Executive Unilateralism And Individual Rights In A Federalist System, Meredith Mclain, Sharece Thrower

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presidents have a wide array of tools at their disposal to unilaterally influence public policy, without the direct approval of Congress or the courts. These unilateral actions have the potential to affect a variety of individual rights, either profitably or adversely. Governors too can employ unilateral directives for similar purposes, often impacting an even wider range of rights. In this Article, we collect all executive orders and memoranda related to individual rights issued between 1981 and 2018 at the federal level, and across the U.S. states, to analyze their use over time. We find that chief executives of all kinds …

Tribalism And Democracy, Seth Davis

William & Mary Law Review

Americans have long talked about “tribalism” as a way of talking about their democracy. In recent years, for example, commentators have pointed to “political tribalism” as what ails American democracy. According to this commentary, tribalism is incompatible with democracy. Some commentators have cited Indian Tribes as evidence to support this incompatibility thesis, and the thesis has surfaced within federal Indian law and policy in various guises up to the present day with disastrous consequences for Indian Tribes. Yet much of the talk about tribalism and democracy—within federal Indian law, and also without it—has had little to do with actual tribes. …

Comments On Mcgahn "A Brief History Of Judicial Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration", Russell Wheeler

William & Mary Law Review Online

Donald McGahn is a respected member of the Washington D.C. legal community, known especially for his expertise in election law. He served as White House counsel in the Trump administration until October 2018 and was a key player in the Trump administration’s judicial appointments process.His article is witty, sometimes revealing, but above all a description, as he sees it, of the decades-long deterioration of the process for Senate confirmation of federal judicial nominees, with some blame assigning. He also provides a few behind-the-scenes looks at Trump administration confirmation battles, and some recommendations for easing contentiousness in— or at least, speeding …

Privacy Or The Polls: Public Voter Registration Laws As A Modern Form Of Vote Denial, Audrey Paige Sauer

William & Mary Law Review

On May 11, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PACEI), with the mission to “study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.” Pursuant to this mission, Vice Chair of the Commission, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, sent out letters to state election officials soliciting all “publicly available voter roll data,” including all registrants’ full first and last names, middle names or initials, addresses, dates of birth, political party, last four digits of Social Security numbers if available, voter history from 2006 onward, information regarding any felony …

The Court Should Not Let Politically Divided Times Affects Its Choices And Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

William & Mary Law Review

The Court should not let politically divided times affect its choices or decisions. Altering the Court’s role in politically divided times would require a definition of what qualifies as such an era and a theory of how to act in such times. Almost every era in American history could be deemed a politically divided time. Changing the Court’s role in politically divided times is inconsistent with its preeminent role: interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. This role does not change, and should not change, in politically charged moments. Indeed, history shows that the Court cannot know what is likely to lessen …

"Great Variety Of Relevant Conditions, Political Social And Economic": The Constitutionality Of Congressional Deadlines On Amendment Proposals Under Article V, Danaya C. Wright

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Within a year or two, the thirty-eighth state is likely to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), setting up an unprecedented constitutional challenge. The ERA was proposed with a seven-year deadline in the resolving clause, establishing the mode of ratification. That was a shift from earlier precedents in which a deadline had been placed in the text of the amendment proposal itself. Article V is annoyingly silent on the issue of congressional deadlines in amendment proposals, and the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of a deadline that could void an otherwise properly ratified amendment. The practice of placing …

Section 2: Trump And The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

A Father's Lament: Uva Law Professor A. Benjamin Spencer On Charlottesville, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Why Congress Does Not Challenge Judicial Supremacy, Neal Devins

William & Mary Law Review

Members of Congress largely acquiesce to judicial supremacy both on constitutional and statutory interpretation questions. Lawmakers, however, do not formally embrace judicial supremacy; they rarely think about the courts when enacting legislation. This Article explains why this is so, focusing on why lawmakers have both strong incentive to acquiesce to judicial power and little incentive to advance a coherent view of congressional power. In particular, lawmakers are interested in advancing favored policies, winning reelection, and gaining personal power within Congress. Abstract questions of institutional power do not interest lawmakers and judicial defeats are seen as opportunities to find some other …

Judicial Supremacy Revisited: Independent Constitutional Authority In American Constitutional Law And Practice, Mark A. Graber

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court exercises far less constitutional authority in American law and practice than one would gather from reading judicial opinions, presidential speeches, or the standard tomes for and against judicial supremacy. Lower federal court judges, state court justices, federal and state elected officials, persons charged with administering the law, and ordinary citizens often have the final say on particular constitutional controversies or exercise temporary constitutional authority in ways that have more influence on the parties to that controversy than the eventual Supreme Court decision. In many instances, Supreme Court doctrine sanctions or facilitates the exercise of independent constitutional authority …

The Challenges Of Gaming For Democratic Education: The Case Of Icivics, Jeremy D. Stoddard, Angela M. Banks, Christine L. Nemacheck, Elizabeth Wenska

Faculty Publications

Video games are the most recent technological advancement to be viewed as an educational panacea and a force for democracy. However, this medium has particular affordances and constraints as a tool for democratic education in educational environments. This paper presents results from a study of the design and content of four iCivics games and their potential to meet the goals of democratic education. Specifically, we focus on the games as designed experiences, the nature and accuracy of the content, and the nature of intellectual engagement in the games. We find that the games, while easily accessible and aligned with standardized …

Presupposing Corruption: Access, Influence, And The Future Of The Pay-To-Play Legal Framework, Allison C. Davis

William & Mary Business Law Review

Political spending, in all of its various permutations, lies at the nexus between campaign finance law and pay-to-play law. Both of these legal doctrines seek to minimize the corrupting effects of money upon elected officials and candidates, and both impose various caps and restrictions on political contributions in order to do so. Over the past half-century, however, the Supreme Court has struggled to define what sort of activity constitutes “corruption” in the political sphere. In light of its decisions in 2010’s Citizens United v. FEC and 2014’s McCutcheonv. FEC—two seminal cases that dramatically altered campaign finance regulation— the Court now …

The Narrowing Of Federal Power By The American Political Capital, David Fontana

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay--—prepared for a symposium hosted by the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal on the future of the District of Columbia--—argues that American federal power can be better understood by considering the features of the metropolitan area that houses the most important parts of the American federal government. In other American metropolitan areas and in most capital metropolitan areas elsewhere in the world, local life features multiple and diverse industries. Washington is the metropolitan area that houses the most important parts of the American federal government, and Washington is dominated by the government and related industries. Washington is, …

Transparency Rules In U.S. Elections Need Updating To Reflect 21st Century Realities, Rebecca Green

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

"…Chosen By The People Of The Several States…": Statehood For The District Of Columbia, Larry Mirel, Joe Sternlieb

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Welcome To New Columbia: The Fiscal, Economic And Political Consequences Of Statehood For D.C., David Schleicher

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Right To Vote: Is The Amendment Game Worth The Candle?, Heather K. Gerken

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Three Questions For The "Right To Vote" Amendment, Richard Briffault

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Democratic Capital: A Voting Rights Surge In Washington Could Strengthen The Constitution For Everyone, Jamin Raskin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Theories Of Representation: For The District Of Columbia, Only Statehood Will Do, Mary M. Cheh

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Jury And Participatory Democracy, Alexandra D. Lahav

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court Judges …

Charities In Politics: A Reappraisal, Brian Galle

William & Mary Law Review

Federal law significantly limits the political activities of charities, but no one really knows why. In the wake of Citizens United, the absence of any strong normative grounding for the limits may leave the rules vulnerable to constitutional challenge. This Article steps into that breach, offering a set of policy reasons to separate politics from charity. I also sketch ways in which my more precise exposition of the rationale for the limits helps guide interpretation of the complex legal rules implementing them.

Any defense of the political limits begins with significant challenges because of a long tradition of scholarly criticism …

Petitions, Privacy, And Political Obscurity, Rebecca Green

Faculty Publications

People who sign petitions must accept disclosure of their political views. This conclusion rests on the seemingly uncontroversial (if circular) premise that petition signing is a public activity. Courts have thus far shown little sympathy for individuals who take a public stand on an issue by signing a petition and then assert privacy claims after the fact. Democracy, after all, takes courage, as Justice Scalia wrote in the petitioning disclosure case Doe v. Reed. But signing a petition today brings consequences beyond public criticism. The real threat of disclosure for modern petition signers is not tangible harassment, but the loss …

Without Compromise, Fixing Deficit Is A Fairy Tale, Nathan B. Oman

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Mormon Plot That Wasn't, Nathan B. Oman

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins

Popular Media

For the first time in a century, the Supreme Court is divided solely by political party.

The Senate: Out Of Order?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

Due to the routine use of the filibuster and related devices, today’s Senate operates as a supermajoritarian body. This Symposium Article considers whether this supermajoritarian aspect of the Senate renders it dysfunctional and, if so, what can be done about it. I contend that the Senate is indeed broken. Its current supermajoritarian features have pernicious effects. Further, and contrary to the claims of many of the Senate’s defenders, this aspect of the Senate is not part of the original design. I go on to explain why the Senate’s procedures, despite their deficiencies, have nonetheless proven resistant to reform. The impediment …

Romney And Huntsman: Two Answers To The 'Mormon Question', Nathan B. Oman

Popular Media

No abstract provided.