Law Commons^™

Interpretative Equality As A Structural Imperative (Or 'Pucker Up And Settle This!'), Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

To serious students of the Constitution, Chief Justice Marshall's discussion of judicial review in Marbury v. Madisont was about judicial equality-the power of the courts, co-equal to the similar powers of the legislative and executive departments, to construe and apply the Constitution in the course of their duties. To less serious students of the Constitution, Marbury was about judicial supremacy-the supposedly paramount power of courts to interpret and apply the Constitution in a fashion that binds other legal actors, including the legislative and executive departments and state officials.

One Strike And You're Out? Constitutional Constraints On Zero Tolerance In Public Education, Eric D. Blumenson, Eva S. Nilsen

Faculty Scholarship

Various studies reported that juvenile crimes of violence fell in the 1990s by as much as 30%. ¹⁰ In high schools specifically, the incidence of threatening behavior in 1996 changed little from two decades earlier, ¹¹ with the chances of being killed in school far less than being struck by lighting. ¹² The "juvenile crime bomb" proved illusory (as Delulio himself eventually acknowledged ¹³), but the severe measures designed to deal with it remain entrenched. Zero tolerance has taken on a life of its own, partly because public misperception remains high, ¹⁴ and partly because in our hardheaded times …

The Missing Selves In Constitutional Self-Government, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

Both Christopher Eisgruber and Jed Rubenfeld have written important books developing sophisticated theories of constitutional self-government. Eisgruber's Constitutional Self-Government' and Rubenfeld's Freedom and Time: A Theory of Constitutional SelfGovernment2 join issue in significant ways, and therefore a dialogue concerning them should prove illuminating. Rubenfeld says his book and Eisgruber's book are somewhat similar, but very different.' Eisgruber says his book and Rubenfeld's book are fairly similar, yet also somewhat different-and where they differ, they sometimes complement one another, or perhaps supply the deficiencies in the other.4 I say the books are very similar-more similar than either recognizes or concedes-and that …

A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus And Deference On The Supreme Court, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has struck down federal statutes by a bare majority with unprecedented frequency. This Article shows that five-four decisions regularly overturning acts of Congress are a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas earlier Courts generally exercised judicial review by supermajority voting.

One option is to establish the following rule: The Supreme Court may not declare an act of Congress unconstitutional without a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court itself could establish this rule internally, just as it has created its nonmajority rules for granting certiorari and holds, or one Justice who would otherwise be the fifth …