Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitution (3)
- Constitutional law (3)
- Individual mandate (2)
- ALJ (1)
- Administrative Law (1)
-
- Administrative Law Judge (1)
- Affordable Care Act (1)
- Agency (1)
- Any-voting-number theory (1)
- Balance of power (1)
- Calabresi (1)
- Cameras (1)
- Civil Service (1)
- Commerce clause (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitutional history (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida (1)
- Due process (1)
- Due process of law (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Family law (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Filibuster (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Free Enterprise Fund (1)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (1)
- Freedom of the press (1)
- Good Cause (1)
- Grandstanding (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Creating Hammer V. Dagenhart, Logan E. Sawyer Iii
Creating Hammer V. Dagenhart, Logan E. Sawyer Iii
Scholarly Works
Hammer v. Dagenhart is among the best known cases in the canon of constitutional law. It struck down the first federal child labor law on the grounds that Congress’s commerce power allowed it to prohibit the interstate shipment of harmful goods, like impure food and drugs, but not harmless goods, like the products of child labor. Withering criticism of the decision spread from Justice Holmes’s famous dissent to law reviews, treatises, casebooks, and constitutional law classes. For nearly a century the decision has been scorned as inconsistent with precedent, incoherent as policy, and driven solely by the Court’s reactionary commitment …
Law's Public/Private Structure, Christian Turner
Law's Public/Private Structure, Christian Turner
Scholarly Works
Often derided for its incoherence or uselessness, the public/private distinction is rarely studied explicitly outside the state action doctrine in Constitutional Law. To ignore this distinction, however, is to miss the most fundamental sorting criterion in our law. Distinguishing whether public or private entities control (a) law creation and definition and (b) prosecution leads to a simple yet powerful taxonomy of legal systems. The taxonomy characterizes legal systems in terms of control over decisionmaking by our most basic institutional forms: the public and private. Thus, the proper categorization of laws within the system, for example whether a policy should be …
Why Obama’S Words Didn’T Go Far Enough, Sonja R. West, Dahlia Lithwick
Why Obama’S Words Didn’T Go Far Enough, Sonja R. West, Dahlia Lithwick
Popular Media
When President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage, he talked broadly about “equality” and “fairness.” He spoke of “opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians” and making sure that nobody is treated as “less than full citizens when it comes to their legal rights.” It was a powerful moment—historic and emotional. In the Aaron Sorkin version, the orchestra would have soared at this point as the supporting cast members exchanged teary-eyed yet knowing nods.
But then President Obama described how these rights should be protected and the music stopped with a squawk. Same-sex marriage, he said, is not in fact …
Due Process As Separation Of Powers, Nathan S. Chapman, Michael W. Mcconnell
Due Process As Separation Of Powers, Nathan S. Chapman, Michael W. Mcconnell
Scholarly Works
From its conceptual origin in Magna Charta, due process of law has required that government can deprive persons of rights only pursuant to a coordinated effort of separate institutions that make, execute, and adjudicate claims under the law. Originalist debates about whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were understood to entail modern “substantive due process” have obscured the way that many American lawyers and courts understood due process to limit the legislature from the Revolutionary era through the Civil War. They understood due process to prohibit legislatures from directly depriving persons of rights, especially vested property rights, because it was …
Avoiding Independent Agency Armageddon, Kent H. Barnett
Avoiding Independent Agency Armageddon, Kent H. Barnett
Scholarly Works
In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Congress’ use of two layers of tenure protection to shield Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) members from the President’s removal. The SEC could appoint and remove PCAOB members. An implied tenure-protection provision protected the SEC from the President’s at-will removal. And a statutory tenure-protection provision protected PCAOB members from the SEC’s at-will removal. The Court held that these “tiered” tenure protections unconstitutionally impinged upon the President’s removal power because they prevented the President from holding the SEC responsible for PCAOB’s actions in the same …
Civil Recourse, Damages-As-Redress, And Constitutional Torts, Michael Wells
Civil Recourse, Damages-As-Redress, And Constitutional Torts, Michael Wells
Scholarly Works
In Torts as Wrongs, Professors John Goldberg and Benjamin Zipursky discuss the connection between "tortious wrongdoing" and "civil recourse." Their civil recourse theory "sees tort law as a means for empowering individuals to seek redress against those who have wronged them." Goldberg and Zipursky show that modern tort theory is dominated by "loss allocation," which uses liability and damages as instruments for assigning losses to deter unwanted behavior and to compensate the plaintiff. Under loss allocation, the central principle of damages is full compensation that is, to make the plaintiff whole. The core component of damages, though not the only …
The Monster In The Courtroom, Sonja R. West
The Monster In The Courtroom, Sonja R. West
Scholarly Works
It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. Despite continued pressure from the press, Congress, and the public to allow cameras into oral arguments, the Justices have steadfastly refused.
The policy arguments for allowing cameras in the courtroom focus on cameras as a means to increased transparency of judicial work. Yet these arguments tend to gloss over a significant point about the Court — it is not secretive. The Court allows several avenues of access to its oral arguments including the presence of the public and the press in the audience, …
The Originalist Case Against Congressional Supermajority Voting Rules, Dan T. Coenen
The Originalist Case Against Congressional Supermajority Voting Rules, Dan T. Coenen
Scholarly Works
Controversy over the Senate’s filibuster practice dominates modern discussion of American legislative government. With increasing frequency, commentators have urged that the upper chamber’s requirement of sixty votes to close debate on pending matters violates a majority-rulebased norm of constitutional law. Proponents of this view, however, tend to gloss over a more basic question: Does the Constitution’s Rules of Proceedings Clause permit the houses of Congress to adopt internal parliamentary requirements under which a bill is deemed “passed” only if it receives supermajority support? This question is important. Indeed, the House already has such a rule in place, and any challenge …
Justice John Paul Stevens, Originalist, Diane Marie Amann
Justice John Paul Stevens, Originalist, Diane Marie Amann
Scholarly Works
Commentators, including the author of a recent book on the Supreme Court, often attempt to give each Justice a methodological label, such as “practitioner of judicial restraint,” “legal realist,” “pragmatist,” or “originalist.” This Essay first demonstrates that none of the first three labels applies without fail to Justice John Paul Stevens; consequently, it explores the extent to which Justice Stevens’s jurisprudence paid heed to the fourth method, “originalism.” It looks in particular at Justice Stevens’s opinions in recent cases involving firearms, national security, and capital punishment. Somewhat at odds with conventional wisdom, the Essay reveals Justice Stevens as a kind …
Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Standing Paradox, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard
Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Standing Paradox, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard
Scholarly Works
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) litigation presents a standing paradox. In the current posture, it appears that states lack standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of individuals, while individuals possess standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of states. This Article contends that there is no principled reason for this asymmetry and argues that standing doctrine should apply as liberally to states as individuals, assuming states allege the constitutional minimum requirements for standing and especially where the legal challenge turns on allocation of power between the federal government and states. The Article proceeds by …
An Essay On Originalism And The 'Individual Mandate': Rounding Out The Government’S Case For Constitutionality, Dan T. Coenen
An Essay On Originalism And The 'Individual Mandate': Rounding Out The Government’S Case For Constitutionality, Dan T. Coenen
Scholarly Works
The Supreme Court now has under advisement the landmark federal health care law case. Much attention has focused on the law’s minimum coverage provision—or so-called “individual mandate” — and, in particular, its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. In a separate and much lengthier article, I offer two main observations about the arguments made to the Court on that issue. First, I show that the challengers of the minimum coverage provision emphasized originalist reasoning in their briefs and oral arguments, while the federal government did not. Second, I explain why — contrary to the impression …