Law Commons^™

Judicial Review Before Marbury, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

While scholars have long probed the original understanding of judicial review and the early judicial review case law, this article presents a study of the judicial review case law in the United States before Marbury v. Madison that is dramatically more complete than prior work and that challenges previous scholarship on the original understanding of judicial review on the two most critical dimensions: how well judicial review was established at the time of the Founding and when it was exercised. Where prior work argues that judicial review was rarely exercised before Marbury (or that it was created in Marbury), …

Terrorist Speech And The Future Of Free Expression, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The crucial point is this: Both liberal, democratic states, and non-state terrorist organizations need free speech. Prominent scholars have written elegantly and at length on the role of this liberty for the former. While their arguments surface at times in the text, the author does not dwell on them. Instead, she wrestles with the question: Under what circumstances are the interests of the state secured and the opportunism of terrorist organizations avoided? Here, the experiences of the United States and United Kingdom prove instructive. On both sides of the Atlantic, where the state acts as sovereign, efforts to restrict persuasive …

Trumping Precedent With Original Meaning: Not As Radical As It Sounds, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Originalism was thought to be buried in the 1980s with critiques such as those by Paul Brest and Jeff Powell. Brest charged that originalism was unworkable, while Powell maintained that originalism was inconsistent with the original intentions of the Founders. Others raised the moral challenge of why we should be ruled by the "dead hand" of the past. Yet an originalist approach to interpretation has-like a phoenix from the ashes or Dracula from his grave, depending on your point of view-survived into the Twenty-first Century as an intellectual contender. Indeed, it has thrived like no other approach to interpretation.

Grading Justice Kennedy: A Reply To Professor Carpenter, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

I want to thank the editors of the Minnesota Law Review for soliciting this Reply to Professor Dale Carpenter's provocative analysis of my assessment of Justice Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. As it turns out, though we do disagree about Lawrence, Professor Carpenter and I have fewer disagreements than he thinks. To begin to see why, let us imagine that, like many other professors, he had used the facts and lower opinion in Lawrence as the basis for his final examination in his course on Constitutional Law. On the exam, he asked his students to write an opinion for …

Constitutive Commitments And Roosevelt's Second Bill Of Rights: A Dialogue, Randy E. Barnett, Cass R. Sunstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

What made the Second Bill of Rights possible? Part of the answer lies in a simple idea, one pervasive in the American legal culture during Roosevelt's time: No one really opposes government intervention. Markets and wealth depend on government. Without government creating and protecting property rights, property itself cannot exist. Even the people who most loudly denounce government interference depend on it every day. Their own rights do not come from minimizing government but are a product of government. Political scientist Lester Ward vividly captured the point: "[T]hose who denounce state intervention are the ones who most frequently and successfully …

The Very Idea Of A First Amendment Right Against Compelled Subsidization, Gregory Klass

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

At present, it is difficult to discern what rules govern compelled subsidization and where the constitutional limits lie. The root cause of the current confusion is the Supreme Court's failure to provide a coherent account of the First Amendment harm of compelled subsidization. Part I of this Article describes the present state of the doctrine. It identifies a number of practical problems, especially the imprecisions in and conflicts between the Court's holdings that leave it unclear how lower courts should decide novel cases. Part II is a critical discussion of the two most common arguments for a First Amendment right …

Human Nature, The Laws Of Nature, And The Nature Of Environmental Law, Richard J. Lazarus

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The essay is divided into three parts. Part I considers the ways in which the need for environmental law derives from the tendency of human nature to cause adverse environmental consequences and the ways in which the laws of nature make it more difficult to prevent those consequences absent the imposition of external legal rules. Part II describes how our nation's lawmaking institutions are similarly challenged by the laws of nature. This includes a discussion of how the kinds of laws necessary to bridge the gap between human nature and the laws of nature are systematically difficult for our lawmaking …

Constitutionalization, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Students of constitutional law tend to suspect pretty early on that the Constitution simply means whatever the Supreme Court says that it means. Rather than fight that intuition, I think it is best to treat the student insight as one of the basic starting assumptions when teaching a course in Constitutional Law. The goal then becomes to help students figure out how best to maneuver and feel comfortable in a legal universe where the Constitution has only contingent meaning.

What the Supreme Court does when it clothes its political policy preferences in the garb of constitutional law can be described …

The Justice Of Administration: Judicial Responses To Executive Claims Of Independent Authority To Interpret The Constitution, Brian Galle

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

There is a growing trend in federal agencies towards explicit consideration of the Constitution, and the principles of justice that it suggests. In controversies ranging from the Justice Department's challenge to the Oregon Death With Dignity Act to IRS regulation of the political activities of non-profits, agencies have come more and more to rely on their own view of what the Constitution requires or implies.

Academic commentary almost universally lauds this move toward interpretive autonomy, if not the specific interpretations that the current administration has offered. Advocates of republicanism and cooperative regulation welcome the opportunities for wider public deliberation on …

Guantanamo And The Conflict Of Laws: Rasul And Beyond, Kermit Roosevelt Iii

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Solving The Bargaining Democracy Problem Using A Constitutional Hierarchy Of Law, Clas Wihlborg

Business Faculty Articles and Research

In the “bargaining democracy” groups form coalitions that are able to grant benefits to themselves through legislation. These benefits may lack popular support. A constitutional hierarchy of conflicting laws is proposed to resolve this democratic problem. In the hierarchy more “rule-oriented” legislation dominate. The hierarchy would create a momentum of the political process towards more rule-oriented legislation and policy debate. The difficulty of defining a rule operationally is overcome by limiting the task of a constitutional court to simply rank conflicting policy actions in terms of criteria for rules.

Confrontation After Crawford, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The following edit excerpt, drawn from "The Confrontation Clause Re-Rooted and Transformed," 2003-04 Cato Supreme Court Review 439 (2004), by Law School Professor Richard D. Friedman, discusses the impact, effects, and questions generated by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford v. Washington last year that a defendant is entitled to confront and cross-examine any testimonial statement presented against him. In Crawford, the defendant, charged with attacking another man with a knife, contested the trial court's admission of a tape-recorded statement his wife made to police without giving him the opportunity to cross-examine. The tiral court admitted the statement, and …

The Unfulfilled Promise Of The Constitution In Executive Hands, Cornelia T. Pillard

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Many leading constitutional scholars now argue for greater reliance on the political branches to supplement or even supplant judicial enforcement of the Constitution. Responding to our national preoccupation with the judiciary as the mechanism of constitutional enforcement, these scholars stress that the executive and legislature, too, bear responsibility to think about the Constitution for themselves and to take steps to fulfill the Constitution's promise. Joining a debate that goes back at least as far as Marbury v. Madison, current scholars seek to reawaken the political branches to their constitutional potential, and urge the Supreme Court to leave the other branches …

The Politics Of The Geneva Conventions: Avoiding Formalist Traps, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Geneva Conventions were drafted in 1949, in another world. The world of the Geneva Conventions' "framers" is still familiar to all of us, though increasingly it is familiar from movies and books rather from the evening news or, still less, our own lived experience. The world in which the Conventions were drafted was a world of states: powerful states, weak states, predatory states, law-abiding states, but states all the same. Soldiers wore uniforms designed by their states, carried weapons issued by their states, obeyed orders given by their commanders, and fought against the armies of other states.

Well--most of …

Limiting Raich, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

On Monday, November 29th, 2004, at 10:30 a.m., I rose to argue the case of Gonzales v. Raich in the Supreme Court on behalf of Angel Raich and Diane Monson. On Monday, June 6th, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., the Court announced its decision. Even today it is painful to read the opinions in the case. I am saddened for my clients, and the thousands like them, whose suffering is alleviated by the use of cannabis for medical purposes, as recommended by their physicians and permitted by the laws of their states, but who are nevertheless considered criminals by the federal …

Free Exercise And The Problem Of Symmetry, Nelson Tebbe

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Accommodation And The Rule(S) Of Courts, Lorne Sossin

Articles & Book Chapters

Constitutional authority for the development and implementation of the rules of court lies with both the legislature, by its statutory power, and the judiciary, by the constitutional principles of judicial independence. The court rules in question here are those that govern court accessibility as well as the roles and responsibilities of parties in civil litigation. The three existing models of rule-making are court-led, where a majority of government officials, and collaborative, which lacks an evident majority of either. These rule-making bodies do not control court fees, the executive does, but in a system with any model, the judiciary always has …

Security And Rights, Trevor C. W. Farrow

Articles & Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

A Constitutionalist Perspective, Elizabeth Dale

UF Law Faculty Publications

Intended as a sustained critique of modern communitarian thought written from a constitutionalist perspective, Beau Breslin'sCommunitarian Constitution is a handy primer on modern communitarian thought and a provoking consideration of the impact of communitarian thinking on contemporary politics.

The foundation for Breslin's fundamental argument--that constitutionalism provides a viable alternative to communitarianism, while liberalism cannot--is not laid as well as one might wish. There are other points where his logic ought to be more rigorously developed, most notably in his assessment of the role and power of the rule of law in a constitutionalist system. He rests his reliance on …

Prisoner Voting Rights In Canada: Rejecting The Notion Of Temporary Outcasts, Debra Parkes

All Faculty Publications

This book chapter examines a successful prisoner voting rights case in Canada and suggests that the opposition in the U.S. to postincarceration legal, social, and economic consequences of criminal conviction would benefit from attention to the way the continued construction of prisoners as temporary outcasts resonates positively in society, assisting to legitimate the myriad penalties and consequences imposed on prisoners' release.

Video Games As A Protected Form Of Expression, Paul E. Salamanca

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Video games, like motion pictures, failed to qualify for First Amendment protection until well after they emerged as a medium. Today, a number of courts have held that such games constitute a form of expression and do not fall into any recognized category of unprotected speech. Nevertheless, a number of commentators have called for limited constitutional protection for video games, predicating their arguments on a variety of grounds, including the alleged deleterious effects of such games on children. This Article responds to these commentators and defends recent decisions extending protection to video games.

The Misplaced Flight To Substance, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Courts and commentators have struggled for years to come up with a substantive test for what kinds of condemnations are for a "public use." Does public use mean government ownership and control of property after it is taken? This would preclude delegation of eminent domain to common carriers and utilities. Does public use mean public access to the property after it is taken? This would preclude using eminent domain to acquire facilities off-limits to the public, like prisons.

Faced with these problems of under-inclusion, courts have gravitated to the idea that public use means public purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court …

Summary Of Shuette V. Beazer Homes Holding Corp., 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 82, Joshua Benson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Beazer Homes constructed and sold 206 single-family residences between 1994 and 1999 on a 40-acre residential subdivision. In April 2000, three homeowners, individually, and as proposed class representatives, filed a complaint against Beazer Homes alleging constructional defects to their homes. The complaint alleged that their houses’ foundations and concrete slabs were damaged by expansive soils, a condition in which the soils beneath a house expand when exposed to water and contract when the soil dries. This condition can cause a house’s foundation and concreted slab to crack and separate. The plaintiffs also alleged over 30 additional constructional defects unrelated to …

Discussion: A Focus On Federalism, Jeffrey B. Morris

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Discretion As Delegation: The 'Proper' Understanding Of The Nondelegation Doctrine, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

Does the Constitution limit the extent to which Congress can grant discretion to other actors? The traditional nondelegation doctrine says yes, though advocates of the doctrine strongly disagree about the source of that principle and the location of the line between permissible and impermissible discretion. A number of modern scholars and judges, however, doubt whether the Constitution contains any such principle. This article demonstrates that the Constitution constrains Congress's ability to grant discretion to other actors through the requirement that laws for carrying federal power into execution must be "necessary and proper." The words "necessary" and "proper" have distinct constitutional …

The First Amendment's Original Sin, Lee C. Bollinger

Faculty Scholarship

Times of war place considerable stress on civil liberties, especially ones protected by the First Amendment. When the nation must gather itself to fight an enemy who is intent on killing us, it is perhaps only natural that our tolerance for the usual disorder of dissent will decline. When everyone has to sacrifice for the common good, when fellow citizens are dying in that cause, the costs of speech are visible and serious. Dissent may dissuade or discourage soldiers from fighting; sowing doubt may weaken resolve just when it's needed most; falsehoods and misinformation may lead to catastrophic shifts of …

The Story Of United States V. Salerno: The Constitutionality Of Regulatory Detention, Daniel C. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

Is it constitutional for the government to lock up people without waiting to convict them at trial? If it is, what are the limits on the government's power to lock up anyone it deems dangerous? These are issues raised by preventive detention provisions in bail statutes, and addressed in United States v. Salerno. The controversy about these bail statutes, once so hotly contested, has died down. But the broader questions about the government's power to detain suspected criminals without giving them the benefit of full criminal process remain unresolved, and have taken on a new urgency as the nation confronts …

Rescuing Federalism After Raich: The Case For Clear Statement Rules, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The Rehnquist Court's federalism jurisprudence began with a focus on clear statement rules, but then turned to prohibitory limits on the scope of federal power. This Article specifies the differences between clear statement rules and prohibitory limitations, and outlines some of the factors courts should consider in determining which strategy to pursue in any given context. The Article argues that the scope of the Commerce Clause is an issue that should be resolved using clear statement rules. The Court's decision in United States v. Lopez to follow a prohibitory approach was both strategically mistaken and poorly executed. Although the principles …

Defining The Constitutional Question In Partisan Gerrymandering, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Vieth v. Jubelirer is a significant setback to efforts to challenge partisan gerrymandering in court. Four members of the Supreme Court repudiated Davis v. Bandemer and concluded that partisan gerrymanders present a nonjusticiable question, while the fifth, Justice Kennedy, determined that the Court ought to "refrain from intervention" at this time, although he left open the hope that gerrymandering might become justiciable if the right standard of proving a gerrymander is ever found. Yet, strikingly, all nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that, justiciable or not, partisan gerrymanders do raise a constitutional question and some partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional. …

Is Obtaining An Arrestee's Dna A Valid Special Needs Search Under The Fourth Amendment? What Should (And Will) The Supreme Court Do?, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

An increasing number of states are enacting laws authorizing the forcible taking and analysis of DNA from certain categories of arrestees. For example, California's Proposition 69 requires state law enforcement officials to obtain DNA samples from certain arrestees. By 2009, Proposition 69 will require a DNA sample from every adult arrested for or charged with a felony. This article addresses the constitutionality, under the Fourth Amendment, of taking DNA samples from persons subject to arrest. In particular, the article focuses on the statutes of Virginia and Louisiana, which have authorized DNA sampling of persons arrested for violent crimes and sex …