Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (2)
- Supreme court (2)
- 'rational review' test (1)
- Antony Lewis (1)
- Arrow's Theorem (1)
-
- Binary decision (1)
- Cases (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Detainees (1)
- Due process (1)
- Enemy combatants (1)
- Equal protection analysis (1)
- Executive authority (1)
- First amendment (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Group decision-making (1)
- Interrogation (1)
- Irrationality (1)
- Irrationality theorem (1)
- Kenneth S. Arrow (1)
- Martin Luther King (1)
- Military law (1)
- Military operations (1)
- New York Times v. Sullivan (1)
- POWs (1)
- Prisoners (1)
- Prisoners of war (1)
- Ralph David Abernathy (1)
- Scholar (1)
- War (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
'"You Have Been In Afghanistan": A Discourse On The Van Alstyne Method, Garrett Epps
'"You Have Been In Afghanistan": A Discourse On The Van Alstyne Method, Garrett Epps
All Faculty Scholarship
This essay pays tribute to William Van Alstyne, one of our foremost constitutional scholars, by applying the methods of textual interpretation he laid out in a classic essay, "Interpreting This Constitution: On the Unhelpful Contribution of Special Theories of Judicial Review." I make use of the graphical methods Van Alstyne has applied to the general study of the First Amendment to examine the Supreme Court's recent decisions in the context of the Free Exercise Clause, in particular the landmark case of "Employment Division v. Smith". The application of Van Alstyne's use of the burden of proof as an interpretive tool …
The Irrational Supreme Court, Michael I. Meyerson
The Irrational Supreme Court, Michael I. Meyerson
All Faculty Scholarship
Rationality is prized by lawyers. The 'rational review' test provides the constitutional minimum for due process and equal protection analysis. Unfortunately, even in an idealized world populated by perfectly rational people not all causes of irrational decision-making can be avoided. The basic nature of group decision-making inevitably creates the possibility of certain kinds of irrationality. The core of the problem is that, while deciding which party prevails is a binary decision [either one side or the other wins], there are often multiple issues that need to be decided in any particular case. The task of creating a system for selecting …
The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin
The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin
All Faculty Scholarship
On June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court released its much awaited decisions in the cases posing a challenge to the Executive's self-professed authority to detain and indefinitely hold individuals designated as "enemy combatants." The cases arose from the "war on terrorism" that was launched after the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. When each decision is looked at individually, the result seems to make sense and, given the outcome (affording detainees rights of judicial review), feels good. Yet when these decisions are looked at collectively, it is hard to believe that they were issued by …
The Other Sullivan Case, Garrett Epps, Garrett Epps
The Other Sullivan Case, Garrett Epps, Garrett Epps
All Faculty Scholarship
The standard triumphalist narrative of NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN celebrates the Supreme Court's defense of free speech and press in the case's vindication of powerful journalistic institution. Ignored in this story is the story of the local defendants, civil rights leaders in Alabama who had their solvency threatened by the state courts' vindictive action against them. These defendants challenged the segregated proceedings used in court to affix liability to them—but the Supreme Court ignored their arguments and ignored the racial-equality and individual-rights aspects of the case. From their point of view, SULLIVAN might be so unalloyed a triumph.