Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 10 of 10

Full-Text Articles in Law

Stare Decisis In An Originalist Congress, Joel Alicea Jan 2012

Stare Decisis In An Originalist Congress, Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

The concern here is with the normative status of legislative precedents for an originalist Congress: Should an originalist legislator give any weight to previous legislative constitutional judgments? This Note does not attempt to articulate the specific criteria an originalist legislator (or judge, for that matter) should use in deciding whether to retain a particular precedent. That question is a distinct inquiry for another day. Part I briefly reviews the literature on originalist extrajudicial constitutional interpretation as well as the scholarship on legislative stare decisis. Part II examines five common arguments for adherence to precedent in a judicial setting and analyzes …


Gingrich, Desegregation, And Judicial Supremacy, Joel Alicea Jan 2012

Gingrich, Desegregation, And Judicial Supremacy, Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

Those who oppose judicial supremacy follow in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln himself.


Chief Justice Roberts And The Changing Conservative Legal Movement, Joel Alicea Jan 2012

Chief Justice Roberts And The Changing Conservative Legal Movement, Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

At the sprightly age of 57 and less than seven years into his term as chief justice, John Roberts looks like a man whom time has left behind. The reaction among legal conservatives to the Roberts opinion in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (the healthcare case) has been brutal. Many have accused the chief justice of exchanging the black robes of the jurist for the trappings of the politician. The chief justice is said to have “blinked” and “failed [his] most basic responsibility.” Noted originalist scholar Mike Rappaport strongly implied that Roberts is “both a knave and a …


Shelby County V. Holder And The Voting Rights Act: Getting The Right Answer With The Wrong Standard, Michael James Burns Jan 2012

Shelby County V. Holder And The Voting Rights Act: Getting The Right Answer With The Wrong Standard, Michael James Burns

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Constitutional Right Not To Kill, Mark L. Rienzi Jan 2012

The Constitutional Right Not To Kill, Mark L. Rienzi

Scholarly Articles

Federal and state governments participate in and/or permit a variety of different types of killings. These include military operations, capital punishment, assisted suicide, abortion and self-defense or defense of others. In a pluralistic society, it is no surprise that there will be some members of the population who refuse to participate in some or all of these types of killings. The question of how governments should treat such refusals is older than the Republic itself. Since colonial times, the answer to this question has been driven largely by statutory protections, with the Constitution playing a smaller role, particularly since the …


Forty Years Of Originalism, Joel Alicea Jan 2012

Forty Years Of Originalism, Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

While Professor Noah Feldman has underlined the role Justice Hugo Black played in the development of modern originalism, it was not until Bork's article in 197 1 that the modern originalist movement took flight. [...]having just passed the 40th anniversary of that landmark essay, it is appropriate that we survey how modern originalism began, how it has changed, and what challenges lie ahead. According to Bork, judicial review by the Warren Court was founded on a flawed premise: that courts must "'make fundamental value choices' in order to 'protect our constitutional rights and liberties.'" But if the Constitution already makes …


The Ghost That Slayed The Mandate, Kevin C. Walsh Jan 2012

The Ghost That Slayed The Mandate, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed …


The Reach Of The Schoolhouse Gate: The Fate Of Tinker In The Age Of Digital Social Media, Mickey Lee Jett Jan 2012

The Reach Of The Schoolhouse Gate: The Fate Of Tinker In The Age Of Digital Social Media, Mickey Lee Jett

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Why The Patently Offensive Just Became More Offensive: The “Pole Tax” And The Texas Supreme Court’S Expansion Of The Secondary Effects Doctrine In Combs V. Texas Entertainment Ass’N, Frances Taylor Bishop Jan 2012

Why The Patently Offensive Just Became More Offensive: The “Pole Tax” And The Texas Supreme Court’S Expansion Of The Secondary Effects Doctrine In Combs V. Texas Entertainment Ass’N, Frances Taylor Bishop

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Prosecution Appeals Of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under The Double Jeopardy Clause?, David S. Rudstein Jan 2012

Prosecution Appeals Of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under The Double Jeopardy Clause?, David S. Rudstein

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.