Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- 1st Amendment (1)
- Affordable Care Act (1)
- Appalachian Region (1)
- Bias (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
-
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1)
- Conscience (1)
- Conscientious Objector (1)
- Conscription (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Constitutional rights (1)
- Constitutions (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Draft (1)
- Due process (1)
- Essays (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Free exercise (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- International crimes (1)
- Juror (1)
- Jury (1)
- Learning & scholarship (1)
- Medicaid expansion (1)
- Religion (1)
- Searches & seizures (1)
- Social movements (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Terrorism (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Calculus Of Accommodation: Contraception, Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, And Other Clashes Between Religion And The State, Robin F. Wilson
The Calculus Of Accommodation: Contraception, Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, And Other Clashes Between Religion And The State, Robin F. Wilson
Scholarly Articles
This Article considers a burning issue in society today— whether, and under what circumstances, religious groups and individuals should be exempted from the dictates of civil law. The “political maelstrom” over the Obama administration’s sterilization and contraceptive coverage mandate is just one of many clashes between religion and the state. Religious groups and individuals have also sought religious exemptions to the duty to assist with abortions or facilitate samesex marriages. In all these contexts, religious objectors claim a special right of entitlement to follow their religious tenets, in the face of equally compelling claims that religious accommodations threaten access and …
The Bin Laden Exception, Erik Luna
The Bin Laden Exception, Erik Luna
Scholarly Articles
Osama bin Laden's demise provides an opportune moment to reevaluate the extraordinary measures taken by the U.S. government in the "war on terror," with any reassessment incorporating the threat posed by al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Some modest analysis suggests that terrorism remains a miniscule risk for the average American, and it hardly poses an existential threat to the United States. Nonetheless, terrorism-related fears have distorted the people's risk perception and facilitated dubious public policies, exemplified here by a series of programs implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Among other things, this agency has adopted costly technology and …
Stealth Constitutional Change And The Geography Of Law, Jill M. Fraley
Stealth Constitutional Change And The Geography Of Law, Jill M. Fraley
Scholarly Articles
Bruce Ackerman's recent book, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, is a sudden shift from his previous scholarship on constitutional moments and the ability of social movements to generate minor revolutions. By acknowledging how constitutional change did not fit into his model of deliberate, deeply debated movements, Ackerman has shifted the scholarly lens to unintentional and unanticipated structural variations. Ackerman focuses his book on the political processes and events that have fostered potentially illegitimate constitutional remodeling. He acknowledges that certain features of legal scholarship have contributed to a lack of awareness of slow, structural drift, but he …
Categories, Tiers Of Review, And The Roiling Sea Of Free Speech Doctrine And Principle: A Methodological Critique Of United States V. Alvarez, Rodney A. Smolla
Categories, Tiers Of Review, And The Roiling Sea Of Free Speech Doctrine And Principle: A Methodological Critique Of United States V. Alvarez, Rodney A. Smolla
Scholarly Articles
None available.
Is Medicaid Constitutional?, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost
Juror Privacy In The Sixth Amendment Balance, Melanie D. Wilson
Juror Privacy In The Sixth Amendment Balance, Melanie D. Wilson
Scholarly Articles
Some eight million citizens report for jury duty every year. Arguably, jury duty is one of the most significant opportunities to participate in the democratic process. For the accused, the jury acts as an indispensable safeguard against government overreaching. One might expect, therefore, that our justice system would treat potential jurors with care and tact. The opposite is true. During voir dire, prospective jurors are required to share insights into their own lives, quirks, proclivities, and beliefs. Litigants have probed jurors’ sexual orientation, criminal histories, criminal victimization, health, family relations, and beyond. A few scholars have chided the system for …
Stare Decisis In An Originalist Congress, Joel Alicea
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
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
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 …
The Constitutional Right Not To Kill, Mark L. Rienzi
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
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
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 …