Law Commons^™

Originalism And Second-Order Ipse Dixit Reasoning In Chisholm V. Georgia, D.A. Jeremy Telman

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article presents a new perspective on the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence during the Early Republic. It focuses on what I am calling second-order ipse dixit reasoning, which occurs when Justices have to decide between two incommensurable interpretive modalities. If first-order ipse dixit is unreasoned decision-making, second-order ipse dixit involves an unreasoned choice between or among two or more equally valid interpretive options. The early Court often had recourse to second-order ipse dixit because methodological eclecticism characterized its constitutional jurisprudence, and the early Court established no fixed hierarchy among interpretive modalities.

Chisholm, the pre-Marshall Court’s most important constitutional decision, illustrates …

To Speak Or Not To Speak, That Is Your Liberty: Janus V. Afscme, David Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Some Supreme Court precedents go through extensive death spasms before being interred. Lochner v. New York, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce come to mind. Others like Chisholm v. Georgia and Minersville School District v. Gobitis incurred a swift and summary execution. Still others, overtaken by subsequent cases, remain wraith-like presences among the Court’s past acts: Beauharnais v. Illinois and Buck v. Bell, for example, remain “on the books.”

Artis V. District Of Columbia—What Did The Court Actually Say?, Doron M. Kalir

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued Artis v. District of Columbia. A true "clash of the titans," this 5-4 decision featured colorful comments on both sides, claims of "absurdities," uncited use of Alice in Wonderland vocabulary ("curiouser," anyone?), and an especially harsh accusation by the dissent that "we’ve wandered so far from the idea of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers that we’ve begun to lose sight of what it looked like in the first place."

One might assume that the issue in question was a complex constitutional provision, or a dense, technical federal code …

Justice John Paul Stevens - His Take On Takings, Alan C. Weinstein

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This commentary reviews and analyzes Justice John Paul Stevens's role in shaping the Court's views on the takings issue in land use regulation.

Supreme Court Watch, Reginald Oh

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Discusses the March 1, 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty in Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005). The Court held that the death penalty cannot be applied to individuals under the age of eighteen at the time the crime was committed without violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Supreme Court Watch, Reginald Oh

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Discusses the case in the 2004-05 U.S. Supreme Court Term which decided a constitutional challenge to the State of California's practice of temporarily racially segregating its prisoners. On November 2, 2004, the Court heard oral arguments in Johnson v. California, a lawsuit brought by an African-American prison inmate in the California Department of Corrections. The petitioner contends that the state's longstanding policy of racially segregating prisoners for sixty days violates the Equal Protection Clause. On February 23, 2005, the Court issued its opinion in ]ohnson v. California, 125 S. Ct. 1141 (2005), and held that the policy of …

The True Story Of Marbury V. Madison, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Though normally not friends of original intent or legal tradition, today's judicial "activists" like to trace their lineage back to the (purported) original judicial activist, to the great Chief Justice who was the first to persuade the Supreme Court to strike down a law of Congress.

According to this conceit, which is now the standard interpretation enshrined in countless histories and hornbooks, Marbury v. Madison was the breakthrough that demonstrated how truly powerful the judiciary could be. In this famous case, decided 200 years ago, Marshall supposedly showed that the Constitution is an elastic document or at least could be …

Mr. Justice Holmes's Constitutionally Crooked Path Part Ii: The State Sovereignty Jurisdictional Stopgap , Mitchell B. Weiss

Cleveland State Law Review

This article analyzes the last turn in Justice Holmes's constitutionally crooked path, largely by penetrating to the very core of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Alden v. Maine. Part I therefore traces the Court's waffling attitude towards the division of regulatory power between the state and federal governments. Then, against this backdrop, Part II takes the jurisdictional turn by analyzing the Court's most recent attempt to resuscitate the Tenth Amendment's check on Congress's Commerce Power. To sharpen the focus, much of this article will focus on the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal statute that always seems to sit …

The Clean Air Act Amendments Of 1990 And An Unbridled Spending Power: Will They Survive On The Supreme Court's Road To Substantive Federalism, Mark A. Miller

Cleveland State Law Review

The question remains as to how far the Supreme Court will go in its refortification of the Tenth Amendment. This Note explores emerging federalism trends and evaluates the CAA in light of a stronger state sovereignty that is appearing on the constitutional horizon. Parts II and III examine the CAAA and the constitutional problems engendered by the Act. Part IV examines current Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause jurisprudence, and illustrates that the CAAA is a classic example of how Congress has been able to circumvent the Tenth Amendment with its Spending power. Part V presents a new view of federalism …

The Illiberal Court, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Justice Scalia casts up a dire warning that not only has the Supreme Court in many ways removed the Constitution from the Framers, it is also removing the democratic process from the people and their representatives.

Noam Chomsky And Judicial Review, James G. Wilson

Cleveland State Law Review

This Commentary will consider four authorities who are hardly considered standard-bearers of the Left: Aristotle, Edmund Burke, James Madison, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Insights from Aristotle, Burke, Madison, Holmes, and Chomsky will be combined into following set of propositions: (1) the Supreme Court has a constitutional and historical obligation to resist tyranny and other forms of constitutional perversion and factionalism; (2) the Supreme Court has a unique duty and capacity to combat abuses of private power; (3) private corporations and the well-to-do have gained so much power that they have become a dangerous faction that is turning our government …

Re-Righting The Right To Privacy: The Supreme Court And The Constitutional Right To Privacy In Criminal Law, Jana Nestlerode

Cleveland State Law Review

Since the 1970's, federal legislation has expanded privacy rights in nonconstitutional areas. Juxtaposed against this more liberal legislative trend is the action of a significantly more conservative judiciary which has, and is, contracting that right in those areas governed by the Constitution. An examination of the Supreme Court's most recent decisions in the criminal law arena readily bears witness to this proclivity.

Conservatism And The Rehnquist Court, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Now that the Supreme Court has been overwhelmingly staffed by appointees of Republican Presidents, we can ask: To what extent have they been faithful to the original version of the Constitution as articulated during its early years? How have they revivified the structural protections? How have they communicated an ethical sense of their own role in the structure? The answer, unfortunately, is that the record remains disappointing.

The Most Sacred Text: The Supreme Court's Use Of The Federalist Papers, James G. Wilson

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In interpreting the Constitution the Supreme Court has increasingly referred to The Federalist papers, a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay during the struggle to ratify the Constitution. This article describes in narrative form how the Court has incorporated The Federalist into its opinions, and summarizes how constitutional historians and political scientists have evaluated The Federalist and the Constitution. This format highlights the limited nature of the Court's historical inquiry by demonstrating that the Court and constitutional scholars have been traveling in parallel universes. Either the Court has ignored or been unaware of the …

The Foreign Affairs Power: The Dames & Moore Case, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

A second look, however, reveals that in Dames & Moore, the Supreme Court did more than resolve some of the sticky legalities that were part of a serious foreign policy crisis. It also moved the country one step forward towards a strengthened constitutional structuring of the foreign affairs power. …Dames & Moore v. Regan was the test vehicle through which the Supreme Court scrutinized the constitutionality of the settlement with Iran which permitted the release of the American hostages held by that government.…Because the executive orders of two Presidents were the only barriers to Dames & Moore executing its judgment, …

The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, had a magnificent opportunity to either begin the process of defining first amendment limitations on the scope of the authority of the FCC to regulate the content of broadcast expression, explicate a rational ground for the differential status of broadcasting, or perhaps both. The purpose of this article is not to debate the wisdom of the use of sensitive language on the electronic media or elsewhere. Nor is it our purpose to debate the substantive question of whether the Court reached the proper result in Pacifica, although we will necessarily …

The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, had a magnificent opportunity to either begin the process of defining first amendment limitations on the scope of the authority of the FCC to regulate the content of broadcast expression, explicate a rational ground for the differential status of broadcasting, or perhaps both. The purpose of this article is not to debate the wisdom of the use of sensitive language on the electronic media or elsewhere. Nor is it our purpose to debate the substantive question of whether the Court reached the proper result in Pacifica, although we will necessarily …