Law Commons^™

Incidental Burdens And The Nature Of Judicial Review, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Activists and scholars contesting the meaning of the Second Amendment argue over a startling number of its twenty-seven words: "regulated," "Militia," "State," "people," "keep," "bear," and "Arms." Heller and McDonald sought to resolve most of these debates, but before Professors Joseph Blocher and Darrell Miller, no one noticed the potential for contestation over the Second Amendment's final word: "infringed." When does the application of a gun-neutral law infringe the right? In that deceptively simple question lurk important future debates over the Second Amendment, the Constitution, and law itself.

The Tsunami Of Legal Uncertainty: What’S A Court To Do Post-Mcdonald, Stacey L. Sobel

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent scholarship in political science and law challenges the view that judicial review in the United States poses what Alexander Bickel famously called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." Although courts do regularly invalidate state and federal action on constitutional grounds, they rarely depart substantially from the median of public opinion. When they do so depart, if public opinion does not eventually come in line with the judicial view, constitutional amendment, changes in judicial personnel, and/or changes in judicial doctrine typically bring judicial understandings closer to public opinion. But if the modesty of courts dissolves Bickel's worry, it raises a distinct one: Are …

Bric In The International Merger Review Edifice, Terry Calvani, Karen Alderman

Cornell International Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ecj Review Of Member State Measures For Compliance With Fundamental Rights, John J. Barceló Iii

Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers

This essay explores the avenues through which a European-level system of fundamental rights might be effectively enforced against EU Member State measures. The parallel concept in the U.S. occurred when, starting in 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court began ruling that different distinct guarantees in the Federal Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution controlled State government measures. In the EU, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) could conceivably follow a similar line of development within the EU system, or, on the other hand, the European Court for Human Rights (ECtHR) could play that role. This essay explores these options and …

Determining The Appropriate Standard Of Review In Wto Disputes, Andrew T. Guzman

Cornell International Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Taking State Constitution Seriously, Marvin Krislov, Daniel M. Katz

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Domesticating The Gerrymander: An Essay On Standards, Fair Representation, And The Necessary Question Of Judicial Will, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

The Coherentism Of Democracy And Distrust, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Dissecting In Re D-J-: The Attorney General, Unchecked Power, And The New National Security Threat Posed By Haitian Asylum Seekers, Judy Amorosa

Cornell International Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Putting The Democracy In Democracy And Distrust: The Coherentist Case For Representation Reinforcement, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Existence Conditions And Judicial Review, Michael C. Dorf, Matthew D. Adler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Although critics of judicial review sometimes call for making the entire Constitution nonjusticiable, many familiar norms of constitutional law state what we call "existence conditions" that are necessarily enforced by judicial actors charged with the responsibility of applying, and thus as a preliminary step, identifying, propositions of sub-constitutional law such as statutes. Article I, Section 7, which sets forth the procedures by which a bill becomes a law, is an example: a putative law that did not go through the Article I, Section 7 process and does not satisfy an alternative test for legal validity (such as the treaty-making provision …

Moral Rights, Judicial Review, And Democracy: A Response To Horacio Spector, Laura S. Underkuffler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Judicial Review Equal Protection And The Problem With Plebiscites , Robin Charlow

Cornell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Laws Intentionally Favoring Mainstream Religions: An Unhelpful Comparison To Race, Gary J. Simson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Governmental Functions And Constitutional Doctrine The Historical Constitution , Russell K. Osgood

Cornell Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Useful Is Judicial Review In Free Speech Cases, Robert F. Nagel

Cornell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Law Making And Administration, Roger C. Cramton

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Citizen Suits In The Environmental Field – Peril Or Promise?, Roger C. Cramton

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Nonstatutory Review Of Federal Administrative Action: The Need For Statutory Reform Of Sovereign Immunity, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, And Parties Defendant, Roger C. Cramton

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Doctrine Of Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies In Michigan, Roger C. Cramton

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Compulsory Disclosure And The First Amendment - The Scope Of Judicial Review, Robert B. Kent

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Involvement of the Supreme Court of the United States with highly charged public issues understandably occasions fresh debate concerning the proper role of the Court in determining questions of ultimate governmental power, in short, debate over the doctrine of judicial review.

As it is sometimes difficult for the judge to distinguish between what is unconstitutional and what is merely unwise, so it is difficult for the critic to disassociate his reaction to the results reached in a given case from his evaluation of the competence of the particular judicial performance. For some the failure to draw such a line robs …

The Supreme Court And State Power To Deal With Subversion And Loyalty, Roger C. Cramton

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In this Article, Professor Cramton discusses the effect of recent United States Supreme Court decisions on state control of Subversive activities. He finds that while the decisions to some extent restrict state activity in this area, and though the Court in its decisions gives the impression of vacillation and confusion, some definite and workable principles are emerging which contribute to a resolution of the inherent conflict of federal-state relations which these issues pose. He concludes that as the states grow more sophisticated in their treatment of these issues, so the policy of judicial self-restraint will become more influential in restricting …