Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (2)
- Originalism (2)
- Balkin (1)
- Bill of rights (1)
- Constitution (1)
-
- Customary international law (1)
- Exclusionary Rule (1)
- Fact Finding (1)
- Foreign affairs (1)
- Global constitution (1)
- Globalism (1)
- Hearsay Declarations (1)
- Illegally-Obtained Evidence (1)
- Individual rights (1)
- International law (1)
- James v. Illinois (1)
- Lefty originalism (1)
- Living constitutionalism (1)
- Noncitizens (1)
- Prosecutorial Neglect (1)
- Supermajoritarianism (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Textual And Historical Case Against A Global Constitution, Andrew Kent
A Textual And Historical Case Against A Global Constitution, Andrew Kent
Faculty Scholarship
he emerging conventional wisdom in the legal academy is that individual rights under the U.S. Constitution should be extended to noncitizens outside the United States. This claim - called globalism in my article - has been advanced with increasing vigor in recent years, most notably in response to legal positions taken by the Bush administration during the war on terror. Against a Global Constitution challenges the textual and historical grounds advanced to support the globalist conventional wisdom and demonstrates that they have remarkably little support. At the same time, the article adduces textual and historical evidence that noncitizens were among …
Congress’S Under-Appreciated Power To Define And Punish Offenses Against The Law Of Nations, Andrew Kent
Congress’S Under-Appreciated Power To Define And Punish Offenses Against The Law Of Nations, Andrew Kent
Faculty Scholarship
Perhaps no Article I power of Congress is less understood than the power to define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations. There are few scholarly works about the Clause; Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch have seldom interpreted the Clause, and even then they have done so in a cursory and contradictory manner. Relying on textual analysis and Founding-era history and political theory to read the Clause in a different mannner than previous commentators, this Article seeks to rescue the Clause from obscurity and thereby enrich current foreign affairs debates. Not only is …
The Perpetual Anxiety Of Living Constitutionalism, Ethan J. Leib
The Perpetual Anxiety Of Living Constitutionalism, Ethan J. Leib
Faculty Scholarship
It certainly seems like the originalists are winning. Professor Jack Balkin--finding that he couldn't beat 'em--joined them. Living constitutionalists used to turn to Balkin as a reliable advocate; he recently wrote “we are all living constitutionalists now.” But Balkin has forsaken them. Losing such an important advocate might be a sign that what some once deemed the “ascendant” and dominant theory in constitutional interpretation is on the decline. Still, don't count living constitutionalism out of the game just yet--and don't think one can embrace Balkin's approach and a true living constitutionalism at the same time.
Why Supermajoritarianism Does Not Illuminate The Interpretive Debate Between Originalists And Non-Originalists, Ethan J. Leib
Why Supermajoritarianism Does Not Illuminate The Interpretive Debate Between Originalists And Non-Originalists, Ethan J. Leib
Faculty Scholarship
In A Pragmatic Defense of Originalism, they seek to explain why supermajoritarianism furnishes a new pragmatic defense of originalism. In this Essay, I dispute each of their substantive claims. First, I argue that there is nothing newly pragmatic about their defense. Although they claim to want to make originalists and pragmatists friends, nothing about their project is likely to accomplish this matchmaking. Second, I argue that there is no reason to believe that constitutional entrenchments produced under supermajoritarian decision rules are any more desirable as a general matter than rules produced under other, more relaxed, decision rules. At the core …
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
Faculty Scholarship
James v. Illinois permits illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants, but not defense witnesses. Thus far, all courts have construed James to allow impeachment of defendants' hearsay declarations. This article argues against allowing illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations because doing so unduly diminishes the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect. The distinction between impeaching defendants and defense witnesses disappears when courts allow prosecutors to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations. Because defense witnesses report exculpatory conduct of a defendant who always has a substantial interest in disguising his criminality, their testimony routinely incorporates defendant hearsay. Defense witness testimony thus routinely paves the way …