Law Commons^™

Original Intent And Article Iii, Michael L. Wells, Edward J. Larson

Scholarly Works

Article III of the United States Constitution sets limits on the ability of the legislature to expand or contract the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has generally held that Article III's restraints on the power of the legislature to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts are few and extremely permissive. Many scholars, however, argue that Article III imposes some strong limitations on the legislature's ability to define federal jurisdiction. Strangely, both sides of the debate rely on originalist arguments. This Article argues that reliance on the Framers' intent to resolve issues of federal courts law is …

Abdication Can Be Fun, Join The Orgy, Everyone: A Simpleton’S Perspective On Abdication Of Federal Land Management Responsibilities, George Cameron Coggins

Challenging Federal Ownership and Management: Public Lands and Public Benefits (October 11-13)

14 pages.

Sustainable Use Of Natural Resources: A Native American Perspective, Ted Strong

Sustainable Use of the West's Water (Summer Conference, June 12-14)

27 pages.

Contains footnotes.

The Creation Of A Usable Judicial Past: Max Lerner, Class Conflict, And The Propagation Of Judicial Titans, Sarah Barringer Gordon

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Proportionality In Non-Capital Sentencing: The Supreme Court's Tortured Approach To Cruel And Unusual Punishment, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the Supreme Court's treatment of the Eighth Amendment with respect to claims of excessive prison sentences. Specifically, it addresses the issue of whether and to what degree the Eighth Amendment requires that a punishment not be disproportionate to the crime. In analyzing all of the modern holdings of the Court in this area, this Article finds significant fault with each. The result of this series of flawed opinions from the Supreme Court is that the state of the law with respect to proportionality in sentencing is confused, and what law can be discerned rests on weak foundations. …

The Supreme Court's Land Use Decisions (Symposium - The Supreme Court And Local Government Law, 1993-94 Term), Leon D. Lazer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Twins Separated At Birth: A Comparative History Of The Civil And Criminal Arising Under Jurisdiction Of The Federal Courts And Some Proposal For Change, Donald H. Zeigler

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Social Justice And The Myth Of Fairness: A Communal Defense Of Affirmative Action, Phillip J. Closius

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article shall examine the characteristics of the current analytical framework by first examining some harmful effects resulting from the prioritization of fairness: excessive generalization, formalism and superficiality, and materialism. The Article will then examine in detail the Supreme Court's resolution of modern affirmative action issues. The Court has generated confusion and discord by applying simplistic concepts to complex problems and by adhering to the primacy of fairness in a context in which all interested parties claim that fairness favors their result. Finally, this Article will critique the Court's inability to provide a consistent doctrinal basis for discussing affirmative action …

Innovations Disguised As Traditions: An Historical Review Of The Supreme Court Nominations Process, Ronald D. Rotunda

Law Faculty Articles and Research

No abstract provided.

The Business Of The Supreme Court Revisited, John Paul Jones

Law Faculty Publications

Nearly seventy years after its publication, Prof. Jones revisits Felix Frankfurter and James McCauley Landis' seminal 1928 book.

International Trade Relations And The Separation Of Powers Under The United States Constitution, John Linarelli

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Four Doctrines Of Self-Executing Treaties, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A distinction has become entrenched in United States law between treaties that are "self-executing" and those that are not. The precise nature of this distinction--indeed, its very existence--is a matter of some controversy and much confusion. More than one lower federal court has pronounced the distinction to be the "most confounding" in the United States law of treaties. A tremendous amount of scholarship has sought to clarify this distinction, but the honest observer cannot but agree with John Jackson's observation that " [t]he substantial volume of scholarly writing on this issue has not yet resolved the confusion" surrounding it. The …

Section 1983 Litigation, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.