Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Law

Non-Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

Non-Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professor Mark Tushnet challenges the view that democratic constitutionalism requires courts to dominate constitutional review. He provides three diverse examples of non-judicial institutions involved in constitutional review and examines the institutional incentives to get the analysis" right." Through these examples, Professor Tushnet argues that non-judicial actors may perform constitutional review that is accurate, effective, and capable of gaining public acceptance. Professor Tushnet recommends that scholars conduct further research into non-judicial review to determine whether ultimately more or less judicial review is necessary in constitutional democracies.


Defending Korematsu?: Reflections On Civil Liberties In Wartime, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

Defending Korematsu?: Reflections On Civil Liberties In Wartime, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

According to Justice William J. Brennan, "After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realized that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis came along." This Article examines that observation, using Korematsu as a vehicle for refining the claim and, I think, reducing it to a more defensible one. Part I opens my discussion, providing some qualifications to the broad claim about threats to civil liberties in wartime. Part II then deals with Korematsu and other historical examples of civil liberties ...


New Forms Of Judicial Review And The Persistence Of Rights - And Democracy-Based Worries, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

New Forms Of Judicial Review And The Persistence Of Rights - And Democracy-Based Worries, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Recent developments in judicial review have raised the possibility that the debate over judicial supremacy versus legislative supremacy might be transformed into one about differing institutions to implement judicial review. Rather than posing judicial review against legislative supremacy, the terms of the debate might be over having institutions designed to exercise forms of judicial review that accommodate both legislative supremacy and judicial implementation of constitutional limits. After examining some of these institutional developments in Canada, South Africa, and Great Britain, this Article asks whether these accommodations, which attempt to pursue a middle course, have characteristic instabilities that will in the ...


A New Constitutionalism For Liberals?, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

A New Constitutionalism For Liberals?, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

It has been apparent for at least a decade that liberal constitutional theory is in deep trouble. Of course there are many versions of liberal constitutional theory, but they have essentially no connection to existing practices of constitutional law, considering as practices of constitutional law all the activities of our institutions of government that implicate - interpret, advance, deal with, whatever - fundamental principle. Instead, liberal constitutional theory's vision of the future is nostalgia for the past. For liberal constitutional theorists the Warren Court, or Justice Brennan, basically got everything right, at least in their approach to identifying constitutional law. True ...


Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The invention in the late twentieth century of what I call weak-form systems of judicial review provides us with the chance to see in a new light some traditional debates within U.S. constitutional law and theory, which are predicated on the fact that the United States has strong-form judicial review. Strong- and weak-form systems operate on the level of constitutional design, in the sense that their characteristics are specified in constitutional documents or in deep-rooted constitutional traditions. After sketching the differences between strong- and weak-form systems, I turn to design features that operate at the next lower level. Here ...


"Sir, Yes, Sir!": The Courts, Congress And Structural Injunctions, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

"Sir, Yes, Sir!": The Courts, Congress And Structural Injunctions, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This is a deeply confused book. Not that the authors' stance is unclear: They have seen federal courts in action, and they don't like what they see. Their subject is federal judicial supervision of state and local governments through injunctive decrees. The authors' position wouldn't be confused - or at least would be confused in a different way - if they dealt with injunctive decrees aimed at enforcing what the judges took to be constitutional requirements. In such cases there's at least something coherent that can be said about judges displacing democratic decision-making. Sandler and Schoenbrod, though, don't ...


Alarmism Versus Moderation In Responding To The Rehnquist Court, Mark V. Tushnet Jan 2003

Alarmism Versus Moderation In Responding To The Rehnquist Court, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

I begin in Part I by offering a description of the Supreme Court's recent decisions as a less substantial repudiation of prior principles than many think them to be, and as leaving Congress with the means to achieve a quite substantial proportion of the policy goals it pursued in the statutes the Court invalidated. Part II explains why Congress is unlikely to do so, in light of our apparent commitment to divided government, and parties that are organized around distinctive ideologies because of divided government. Part III turns to the prospect for continued policy transformation, identifying the conditions under ...


Rex E. Lee Conference On The Office Of The Solicitor General Of The United States: Clinton Ii Panel, Seth P. Waxman, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, Barbara D. Underwood, Michael R. Dreeben Jan 2003

Rex E. Lee Conference On The Office Of The Solicitor General Of The United States: Clinton Ii Panel, Seth P. Waxman, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, Barbara D. Underwood, Michael R. Dreeben

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

I will say a few words about Dickerson, both because Michael has made it impossible not to and also because in some ways it represents the very best about how all of the wonderful, tried-and-true processes of the SG's Office ought to work. Dickerson was very much like the other case that Michael talked about (which is one of, I think, two significant privilege controversies which the Independent Counsel laid on our doorstep). These cases may have appeared to the outside world as paradigmatically cases in which we would be hearing from the White House, or talking to the ...