Law Commons^™

Theorizing Forms For Social Enterprise, Dana Brakman Reiser

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Walking Back From Cyprus, Lee C. Buchheit, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

Last Friday, the European leaders trespassed on consecrated ground by putting insured depositors in Cypriot banks in harm’s way. They had other options, none of them pleasant but some less ominous than the one they settled on.

Interpretive Methodology And Delegations To Courts: Are ‘Common-Law Statutes’ Different?, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

It is hard to find consensus on questions of statutory interpretation. Debates rage on about the appropriate goals of interpretation and the best means of achieving those ends. Yet there is widespread agreement, even among traditional combatants on the statutory interpretation field, when it comes to so-called “common-law statutes.” Textualists concede that text is not controlling; originalists admit that judicial construction of common-law statutes need not be keyed to the specific intent of the enacting Congress; and staunch defenders of strict statutory stare decisis allow frequent departures from precedent.

So what are common-law statutes? It is easy enough to name …

The Politics Of Statutory Interpretation, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

In a new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner describe and defend the textualist methodology for which Justice Scalia is famous. For Scalia and Garner, the normative appeal of textualism lies in its objectivity: by focusing on text, context, and canons of construction, textualism offers protection against ideological judging—a way to separate law from politics. Yet, as Scalia and Garner well know, textualism is widely regarded as a politically conservative methodology. The charge of conservative bias is more common than it is concrete, but it reflects the notion that textualism narrows the …

Congressional Silence And The Statutory Interpretation Game, Paul Stancil

Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores the circumstances under which the federal legislative apparatus may be unable to respond to a politically objectionable statutory interpretation from the Supreme Court. The Article builds upon existing economic models of statutory interpretation, for the first time incorporating transaction costs into the analysis. The Article concludes by identifying recent real-world disputes in which transaction costs constrained Congress and the President from overriding the Court.

Who Governs? Delegations In Global Trade Lawmaking, Terence C. Halliday, Josh Pacewicz, Susan Block-Lieb

Faculty Scholarship

Who governs international trade law regimes? Although this question has attracted much research for global regulatory regimes, very little is known about international trade law organizations which function as global legislatures. This paper focuses on hitherto invisible attributes of the inner core of global legislators - the state and non-state delegations and delegations that create global norms for private international trade law through the most prominent global trade legislature, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Based on ten years of fieldwork, extensive interviews, and unique data on delegation attendance and participation in UNCITRAL’s Working Group on Insolvency, …

Committee Jurisdiction, Congressional Behavior And Policy Outcomes, John M. De Figueiredo

Faculty Scholarship

The literature on congressional committees has largely overlooked the impact of jurisdictional fights on policy proposals and outcomes. This paper develops a theory of how legislators balance the benefits of expanded committee jurisdiction against preferred policy outcomes. It shows why a) senior members and young members in safe districts are most likely to challenge a committee’s jurisdiction; b) policy proposals may be initiated off the proposer’s ideal point in order to obtain jurisdiction; c) policy outcomes will generally be more moderate with jurisdictional fights than without these turf wars. We empirically investigate these results examining proposed Internet intellectual property protection …

Liberalism In Decline: Legislative Trends Limiting Religious Freedom In Russia And Central Asia, Elizabeth Clark

Faculty Scholarship

Religious freedom, among other human rights, has increasingly been restricted in Russia and Central Asia. Recent empirical research has shown that increased governmental regulation of religion causes increased social hostilities over religion and has shown the connections between religious freedom and numerous other civil rights and social goods. The U.S. government has particularly recognized the importance of religious freedom in Russia, mandating significant restrictions on aid based on the Russian interpretation of restrictive religion legislation passed in 1997. Since that time, however, virtually no attention has been given to draft legislation in this area in Russia and common trends seen …

What's Wrong With Stereotyping?, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Deference To Congressional Factfinding In Rights-Enforcing And Rights-Limiting Legislation, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Dignity Of Equality Legislation, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

In Congressional Power to Effect Sex Equality, Patricia Seith argues that legal and social science commentary on the ratification failure of the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA") does not properly account for the legislative gains achieved by the Economic Equity Act ("Equity Act"). In drawing attention to the Equity Act, Seith's account challenges common explanations of the source of women's equality gains, particularly the narratives offered by legal commentators who typically focus on the role of the Constitution and the courts. As Seith points out, the conventional account in legal history focuses on the effectuation of a "de facto ERA," …

Syria, Threats Of Force, And Constitutional War Powers, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

In this Essay, Professor Matthew Waxman argues that debates about constitutional war powers neglect the critical role of threats of war or force in American foreign policy. The recent Syria case highlights the President’s vast legal power to threaten military force as well as the political constraints imposed by Congress on such threats. Incorporating threats into an understanding of constitutional powers over war and peace upends traditional arguments about presidential flexibility and congressional checks – arguments that have failed to keep pace with changes in American grand strategy.