Law Commons^™

A Darwinist View Of The Living Constitution, Scott Dodson

Vanderbilt Law Review

There is much debate, and has been for some time, over whether we have a "living" Constitution, one that adapts to changing circumstances and evolves over time. The metaphor arose and gained initial force during the Progressive Era and has been at the forefront of the debate on constitutional interpretation ever since. There is a more recent division, most prominently marked by Professor Owen Jones and Professors Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg, over whether biology has a meaningful role to play in legal developments. Professor Jones has written many articles promoting the potential utility of behavioral and evolutionary science to …

The Court, The Constitution, And The History Of Ideas, Scott D. Gerber

Vanderbilt Law Review

Several of the nation's most influential constitutional law scholars have been arguing for the better part of a decade that judicial review should be sharply limited, or eliminated altogether. The list includes such prominent thinkers as Professor Mark V. Tushnet of Harvard Law School, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, and Dean Larry D. Kramer of Stanford Law School. In place of the doctrine made famous by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, these leading voices of the legal academy call for "popular constitutionalism": a constitutional law that is defined outside of the …

The Constitutional Dimension Of Immigration Federalism, Clare Huntington

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Farmers Branch, Texas, the city council enacted a measure to fine landlords who rent their premises to unauthorized migrants,' and in Arizona, the state legislature passed a law imposing stiff penalties on employers who intentionally or knowingly hire unauthorized migrants. In San Francisco, the board of supervisors passed a measure that bars law enforcement officers from inquiring into the immigration status of an individual in the course of a criminal investigation. In Alabama and Florida, state officials have entered into agreements with the federal government permitting state law enforcement officers to arrest and detain non-citizens on immigration charges. Other …

Non-Judicial Precedent, Michael J. Gerhardt

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article proposes a new paradigm for analyzing the role of precedent in constitutional law. The conventional perspective equates precedent with judicial decisions, particularly those of the Supreme Court, and almost totally ignores the constitutional significance of precedents made by public authorities other than courts. Yet, non- judicial actors produce precedents that are more pervasive than those made by courts in constitutional law. Non-judicial precedents are not only confined to the backwaters of constitutional law, but they also pertain to serious constitutional matters-presidential succession, secession, congressional power to remove Presidents and Justices, and the respective authorities of the President and …

Authorizing Subnational Constitutions In Transitional Federal States, Jonathan L. Marshfield

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Not all federal systems permit their constituent units to adopt constitutions. This Article considers whether, and under what circumstances, subnational constitutions tend to contribute to the volatility or stability of their respective federal systems. By examining the role that subnational constitutions played in South Africa's celebrated democratization, this Article observes that a transitional federal state can increase its flexibility and adaptability by merely authorizing subnational constitutions. The Article concludes that federal systems, particularly those undergoing fundamental change, can be better equipped to manage regime-threatening conflicts and perpetuate a democratic political culture if they permit constituent units to adopt constitutions.

Constitutional Evidence Law, Alex Stein

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article identifies the causes and consequences of a puzzling asymmetry in constitutional law. Of the three facets of adjudicative factfinding-evidence, procedure, and rules of decision- only two are constitutionalized. Constitutional law regulates procedural and decisional rules, but not whether the evidence that factfinders use is adequate.

Constitutional law regulates procedure through a set of rules that determine a person's power to control the trial by adducing evidence in support of her case and by examining the evidence of her adversary. Constitutional law regulates decisionmaking by setting probability requirements for findings of fact-standards of proof-and by allocating the burdens of …