Law Commons^™

"What About The 'Ism'?" Normative And Formal Concerns In Contemporary Federalism, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Contemporary legal discourse concerning federalism has shifted from the formal to the normative, that is, from a focus on the fifty states as unique entities in the American constitutional firmament to a concern with the values of federalism. This normative turn has had some salutary effects. It has sharpened the debate over federalism, reminded us of the impact of the federal design on the substance of American governance, and underscored the interrelationship of government structure and individual rights. But the normative approach has also, paradoxically, moved the focus of federalism away from the states. Many of the arguments offered on …

Free Speech And The Widening Gyre Of Fund-Raising: Why Campaign Spending Limits May Not Violate The First Amendment After All Symposium On Campaign Finance Reform, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

Candidates for office spend too much of their time raising money. This is scarcely a controversial proposition. A major impetus for campaign finance reform is the frustration politicians now feel concerning how much time they must devote to courting potential donors, often by methods borrowed from the marketplace that can only be described as demeaning. The situation has gotten worse as electoral merchandising has grown ever more sophisticated and expensive.

War Powers: An Essay On John Hart Ely's War And Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons Of Vietnam And Its Aftermath, Philip Chase Bobbitt

Faculty Scholarship

I approached John Ely's' new book with the anticipation of delight, qualified by a certain apprehensiveness. Delight because Ely is almost alone among writers in my solemn field in his ability to write with humor; indeed, he writes in a style that reminds me of the marvelous Joseph Heller. There is no reason, I suppose, for constitutional law professors to be incapable of writing amusing and fresh prose or exposing a false syllogism with the light touch of juxtaposition rather than the heavy bludgeon of irony, but how rare this is! More importantly, Ely's arguments have the satisfying feel of …

Brecht V. Abrahamson: Harmful Error In Habeas Corpus Law, James S. Liebman, Randy Hertz

Faculty Scholarship

For the past two and one-half decades, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have applied the same rule for assessing the harmlessness of constitutional error in habeas corpus proceedings as they have applied on direct appeal of both state and federal convictions. Under that rule, which applied to all constitutional errors except those deemed per se prejudicial or per se reversible, the state could avoid reversal upon a finding of error only by proving that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court adopted this stringent standard in Chapman v. California to fulfill the federal …

Shouting Down The Voice Of The People: Political Parties, Powerful Pac's And Concerns About Corruption, Clarisa Long

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Election Campaign Act limits the amount of financial support that political parties may give to candidates for federal office. Clarisa Long argues that these restrictions violate political parties' First Amendment rights of speech and association. Because the flow of money in the political process is a proxy for speech, the First Amendment requires that political actors have access to at least one unrestricted avenue of communication. While individuals' and PACs' First Amendment rights are protected because they may make unrestricted independent expenditures, parties do not have this opportunity. Courts have failed to protect party speech, rationalizing that the …

Reply To Professor Brewbaker, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Brewbaker's thoughtful article on physician price controls raises many issues, large and small. Some – such as the relative merits of the regulatory takings standard and the fair return standard – have been dealt with in my principal article and I will not revisit them here. I will instead address four arguments advanced by Professor Brewbaker that are not anticipated in my article: (1) that the Constitution should not apply to physician price controls because physicians can fend for themselves in the political process; (2) that applying the Takings Clause to physician price controls would be tantamount to reviving …

Hail Britannia?: Institutional Investor Behavior Under Limited Regulation, John C. Coffee Jr., Bernard S. Black

Faculty Scholarship

A central puzzle in understanding the governance of large American public firms is why most institutional shareholders are passive. Why would they rather sell than fight? Until recently, the Berle-Means paradigm – the belief that separation of ownership and control naturally characterizes the modern corporation – reigned supreme. Shareholder passivity was seen as an inevitable result of the scale of modern industrial enterprise and of the collective action problems that face shareholders, each of whom owns only a small fraction of a large firm's shares.

A paradigm shift may be in the making, however. Rival hypotheses have recently been offered …

Two Social Movements, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Two social movements in the last fifty years have had a profound impact on our understanding of law and the role of the courts in our system of government. One is the civil rights movement. The demand for greater racial and gender equality and other civil rights has changed the face of the law in countless ways. For example, it has called into question – or at least required a fundamental revision in – the traditional understanding that the courts should interpret the Constitution and laws in accordance with their original meaning. Decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education …

Constitutional Limits On Physician Price Control, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Proposals for the reform of the nation's health care system have highlighted the issue of rising health care costs. Concern about rising costs, in tum, has led to talk of imposing price controls on health care providers. Economists and other experts have condemned price controls as a way to control rising health care costs. They argue that price controls do nothing to alleviate the underlying causes of inflation; instead, price controls merely postpone or redirect price increases, and in the process introduce allocational distortions and inefficiencies. This Article will not elaborate on the policy arguments for or against medical price …

Unburdening The Undue Burden Standard: Orienting Casey In Constitutional Jurisprudence, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt." With these words in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ushered in a new era of abortion regulation. Speaking through a joint opinion authored by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, the Court indicated that from this point forth abortion regulations would be judged by an "undue burden" standard. According to this standard, an abortion regulation is unconstitutional if it "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion" of a nonviable fetus.

The Justices who wrote …

Textualism And The Future Of The Chevron Doctrine, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The last decade has been a remarkable one for statutory interpretation. For most of our history, American judges have been pragmatists when it comes to interpreting statutes. They have drawn on various conventions – the plain meaning rule, legislative history, considerations of statutory purpose, canons of construction – "much as a golfer selects the proper club when he gauges the distance to the pin and the contours of the course." The arrival of Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court has changed this. Justice Scalia is a foundationalist, insisting that certain interpretational tools should be permanently banned from judicial use. What …

Trivial Rights, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

In the summer of 1789, when the House of Representatives was formulating the amendments that became the Bill of Rights, Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts argued against enumerating the right of assembly. The House, he urged, "might have gone into a very lengthy enumeration of rights; they might have declared that a man should have a right to wear his hat if he pleased, that he might get up when he pleased, and go to bed when he thought proper ... [Was] it necessary to list these trifles in a declaration of rights, under a Government where none of them were …

Reflections Inspired By My Critics, Philip Chase Bobbitt

Faculty Scholarship

The crucial idea in constitutional law is legitimacy; the crucial idea in jurisprudence is justification.

For some time, the academic debate about U.S. constitutionalism has looked for justifications for our practices, believing this would confer legitimacy on them. In my work, I have endeavored to derive legitimacy from the practices themselves, reserving the task of justification for other purposes.

By showing the way in which legitimacy is established and maintained in a constitutional system like ours, I hoped to derive solutions to a number of classical questions, all of which, I believe, are at bottom questions about legitimacy and legitimation. …