Law Commons^™

Justiciability, Federalism, And The Administrative State, Zachary D. Clopton

Cornell Law Review

Article III provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to certain justiciable cases and controversies. So if a plaintiff bringing a federal claim lacks constitutional standing or her dispute is moot under Article III, then a federal court should dismiss. But this dismissal need not end the story. This Article suggests a simple, forward-looking reading of case-or-controversy dismissals: they should be understood as invitations to legislators to consider other pathways for adjudication. A case dismissed for lack of standing, for mootness, or for requesting an advisory opinion might be a candidate for resolution in a state court …

Jurisprudence Of A Fledgling Federation: A Critical Analysis Of Pakistan’S Judicial View On Federalism, Umer Akram Chaudhry

Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers

Although the impediments in development of federation in Pakistan can be explored from different facets, this paper aims to critically analyze the constitutional history and judicial interpretation of federalism in Pakistan against the scholarly and conceptual debates over the idea. The paper argues that Pakistan’s judiciary, despite recognizing federalism as cornerstone of the Constitution, has not upheld the principle as strongly as other salient features of the Constitution. The superior judiciary has strengthened the official discourse of a unitary national identity leaving little room for ethnical pluralism and participatory nationalism. The paper shall also review measures introduced by the recent …

Multiplicity In Federalism And The Separation Of Powers, Josh Chafetz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

By highlighting multiplicity in the federalism context, Alison LaCroix’s new book does constitutional scholarship a great service. Her tracing of the federal idea in the 1760s and 1770s, as well as her tracing of jurisdictional ideas in the early Republic, is thorough and insightful. But it is unclear why her focus suddenly narrows from the federal idea—the idea that multiplicity in levels of government was a virtue rather than a vice—to federal jurisdiction. Certainly, as this Review has endeavored to show, her claim that federalism discourse after 1787 reduced entirely (or even primarily) to jurisdictional debates cannot stand.

And this …

The 2006 Winthrop And Frances Lane Lecture: The Unintended Legal And Policy Consequences Of The No Child Left Behind Act, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

No Federalists Here: Anti-Federalism And Nationalism On The Rehnquist Court, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Relevance Of Federal Norms For State Separation Of Powers, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Instrumental And Non-Instrumental Federalism, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Reapportionment Cases: Cognitive Lag, The Malady And Its Cure, E. F. Roberts, Paul T. Shultz Iii

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The reapportionment cases have been considered by many to be the product of a liberal, activist Court which is endeavoring to reshape America’s political life according to its own views. The authors of this article assert that, to the contrary, the Court actually is reacting to the incontrovertible fact of the modern predominance of urban complexities which have rendered inappropriate our older political boundaries. In this sense, they consider the Court’s decisions conservative rather than liberal- because the Court’s purpose is to maintain a version of federalism along state boundaries which may have become outmoded even before the Court entered …