Law Commons^™

Minimalism: An Implication For American Judicial Review Of Legislation In Deciding Over Rights?, Luz Helena Orozco Y Villa

Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers

The diverse theories of constitutional interpretation in the United States share one strong common purpose: to constrain the adjudicator. Whether is text, tradition, structure or democracy, the prevailing fear behind these reasons is the inescapable empowerment of the “least dangerous branch” that comes with judicial review. This anxiety can be explained through the analysis of the systemic and contextual factors in American constitutionalism. Furthermore, because of the constitutional structure of the United States, there is a permanent tension in judicial activity between certainty and legitimacy. Therefore, I defend a minimalistic approach for judicial review of legislation, particularly in cases dealing …

Taking Distribution Seriously, Robert C. Hockett

Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers

It is common for legal theorists and policy analysts to think and communicate mainly in maximizing terms. What is less common is for them to notice that each time we speak explicitly of socially maximizing one thing, we speak implicitly of distributing another thing and equalizing yet another thing. We also, moreover, effectively define ourselves and our fellow citizens by reference to that which we equalize; for it is in virtue of the latter that our social welfare formulations treat us as “counting” for purposes of socially aggregating and maximizing.

To attend systematically to the inter-translatability of maximization language on …

The State Attorney General And Preemption, Trevor W. Morrison

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

According to the National Association of Attorneys General, "the rise of preemption of state laws and regulations by federal administrative agencies, rather than directly by Congress" is "[p]erhaps the most significant development in federal preemption in the last several decades." This kind of preemption is typically claimed in an agency ruling or regulation declaring certain state laws or activities preempted, even though the underlying statute says nothing about preemption in those areas. That an association of state attorneys general would view "agency preemption" as particularly worrisome is hardly surprising: the main casualties are often state attorneys general, whose broad investigative …

Minding The Gaps: Fairness, Welfare, And The Constitutive Structure Of Distributive Assessment, Robert C. Hockett

Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers

Despite over a century’s disputation and attendant opportunity for clarification, the field of inquiry now loosely labeled “welfare economics” (WE) remains surprisingly prone to foundational confusions. The same holds of work done by many practitioners of WE’s influential offshoot, normative “law and economics” (LE).

A conspicuous contemporary case of confusion turns up in recent discussion concerning “fairness versus welfare.” The very naming of this putative dispute signals a crude category error. “Welfare” denotes a proposed object of distribution. “Fairness” describes and appropriate pattern of distribution. Welfare itself is distributed fairly or unfairly. “Fairness versus welfare” is analytically on all fours …