Law Commons^™

Burying Mcculloch?, David S. Schwartz

Arkansas Law Review

Kurt Lash is a superb constitutional historian trapped inside the body of an originalist. He is one of the few originalists bold enough to acknowledge that McCulloch v. Maryland needs to be ejected from the (conservative) originalist canon of great constitutional cases. While he attributes to me an intention “not to praise the mythological McCulloch, but to bury it,” it is Lash who seeks to bury McCulloch, which he views as a fraudulent “story of our constitutional origins.”

Mcculloch V. Madison: John Marshall's Effort To Bury Madisonian Federalism, Kurt Lash

Arkansas Law Review

In his engaging and provocative new book, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, David S. Schwartz challenges McCulloch’s canonical status as a foundation stone in the building of American constitutional law. According to Schwartz, the fortunes of McCulloch ebbed and flowed depending on the politics of the day and the ideological commitments of Supreme Court justices. Judicial reliance on the case might disappear for a generation only to suddenly reappear in the next. If McCulloch v. Maryland enjoys pride of place in contemporary courses on constitutional law, Schwartz argues, then this …

Does Importance Equal Greatness? Reflections On John Marshall And Mcculloch V. Maryland, Sanford Levinson

Arkansas Law Review

David S. Schwartz’s The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, is a truly excellent book, for which I was happy to contribute the following blurb appearing on the back jacket: "David Schwartz has written an indispensable study of thesingle most important Supreme Court case in the canon. As such, he delineates not only the meaning and importance of the case in 1819, but also the use made of it over the next two centuries as it became a central myth and symbol of the very meaning of American constitutionalism.”

Mcculloch's "Perpetually Arising" Questions, David S. Schwartz

Arkansas Law Review

I’m truly honored to have my book be the subject of a symposium on Balkinization, and I’m deeply grateful to Jack Balkin and John Mikhail for organizing and hosting it. Among its many gratifications for me personally, the symposium guaranteed that at least eight people would read the book. That these readers have engaged with it so closely and insightfully is icing on the cake. My first article on McCulloch four years ago, which became the basis for a couple of the early chapters in the book, insisted that McCulloch was properly interpreted as far less nationalistic than we were …

Scholarship In Review: A Response To David S. Schwartz's The Spirit Of The Constitution: John Marshall And The 200-Year Odyssey Of Mcculloch V. Maryland, Law Review Editors

Arkansas Law Review

We are elated to introduce, and the Arkansas Law Review is honored to publish, this series discussing and applauding David S. Schwartz’s new book: The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland. Schwartz sets forth meticulous research, coupled with unparalleled insight, into the opinion penned by Chief Justice John Marshall and details the winding path Marshall’s words have traveled over the past 200 years. Schwartz argues that the shifting interpretations of McCulloch, often shaped to satisfy the needs of the time, echoes the true spirit of the Constitution.

Is Solitary Confinement A Punishment?, John F. Stinneford

Northwestern University Law Review

The United States Constitution imposes a variety of constraints on the imposition of punishment, including the requirements that the punishment be authorized by a preexisting penal statute and ordered by a lawful judicial sentence. Today, prison administrators impose solitary confinement on thousands of prisoners despite the fact that neither of these requirements has been met. Is this imposition a “punishment without law,” or is it a mere exercise of administrative discretion? In an 1890 case called In re Medley, the Supreme Court held that solitary confinement is a separate punishment subject to constitutional restraints, but it has ignored this …

Our English Legal Forebearers And Their Contributions To The Practice Of Law And American Jurisprudence: Sir Thomas More, Sir Edward Coke, And Sir William Blackstone, Heather R. Darsie

Northern Illinois University Law Review

This Article seeks to remind lawyers of the important duty to uphold the law, and how that was shown through the actions of several English and British attorneys from the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. Beginning with Sir Thomas More, considered as a secular person in this Article, and his refusal to go against what he believed to be the law, to Sir Edward Coke, whose legal judgments assisted early Americans, and ending with Sir William Blackstone, whose careful thinking paved the way for the American legal system. This semi-biographical Article relays the legal changes occurring during the time periods mentioned …

Mezei's Day In Court: Debtors' Prisons, Substance Abuse, And The Permissiveness Of Civil Detention In American Immigration Law, Conor Mcdonough

Northwestern University Law Review

American immigration law mandates the civil detention of certain classes of migrants while their legal cases proceed through the courts. Due to the peculiar nature of immigration law, many migrants find themselves detained for years on end without receiving the level of due process that normally attends imprisonment. This Note draws on historical and comparative analysis to argue that the mandatory detention provisions of American immigration law are not civil, but functionally criminal, and that detained migrants are therefore owed a modicum of due process that they do not currently receive.

This Note traces the history of immigration law in …

A Comprehensive Procedural Mechanism For The Poor: Reconceptualizing The Right To In Forma Pauperis In Early Modern England, Annie Prossnitz

Northwestern University Law Review

In early modern England, litigants could petition for in forma pauperis status in order to seek free legal services, including representation. Scholars have often invoked this history to bolster the claim for a reinforced in forma pauperis right today. This Note explores the origins of the right to in forma pauperis status from a different angle. At the core of this Note is an examination of ninety-two primary-source in forma pauperis petitions and court documents, filed in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English courts of equity, namely Chancery, the Court of Requests, Star Chamber, and Exchequer. Rather than the mythical, rarely used, …