Law Commons^™

Article Ii Revisionism, Cass R. Sunstein

Michigan Law Review

One of the most striking developments of the last decade has been the new use of Article II in public law adjudication. Article II is a prominent feature not only of cases involving the creation of federal institutions that are independent of the President, but also of new disputes involving reviewability, scope of review, and standing.

Professor Krent and Mr. Shenkman have performed a valuable service in spelling out the argument that Article II, rather than Article III, justifies constitutional limits on legislative grants of standing. Indeed, on several important matters, we are very much in agreement. In this brief …

Book Review, Scott Hogan

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)

Review of: ROBERT A. SHANLEY, PRESIDENTIAL INFLUENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. (Greenwood Press, 1992) [163 pp.] Abbreviations, acknowledgements, index, introduction, notes, selected bibliography. LC 92-15584; ISBN 0-313-25883-X. [$45.00 cloth. 88 Post Road West; Westport CT 06881.]

Filling An Enforcement Void: Using Testers To Uncover And Remedy Discrimination In Hiring For Lower-Skilled, Entry-Level Jobs, Michael J. Yelnosky

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Article concludes that the current enforcement scheme under Title VII has resulted in underenforcement of the Act in the context of hiring for lower-skilled, entry-level jobs and that testers should be used to fill that enforcement void. Part II agrees with the EEOC's conclusion that testers have standing to sue under Title VII.

Parts III and IV assert that the EEOC cannot rely on private testers to fill the enforcement void. First, under current doctrine, prevailing testers can obtain only "de minimis" or "technical" relief from an offending employer and therefore cannot recover attorneys' fees. Moreover, …

Presidential Systems In Stress: Emergency Powers In Argentina And The United States, William C. Banks, Alejandro D. Carrió

Michigan Journal of International Law

This article offers three comparative insights. First, it concludes that comparative inquiries into presidential systems may be useful for those interested in constitutional government, regardless of historical, cultural, or other contextual differences among nations. Thus, nations with presidentialist constitutional systems may have common problems because of the institutional presidency. The article maintains that our presidential systems are in such states of disrepair that a fundamental reinvigoration of the legislative and judicial branches is required, so that government may better serve important constitutional values in our nations.

A Retributive Theory Of The Pardoning Power?, Hugo Adam Bedau

University of Richmond Law Review

During the past two decades; the retributive theory of punishment has made remarkable strides in recapturing the affections of penologists. The story has been told elsewhere and need not be reviewed here. For philosophers, if not for others interested in the theory and practice of punishment, a retributive approach holds a double attraction.

The Role Of Executive Clemency In Modern Death Penalty Cases, Bruce Ledewitz, Scott Staples

University of Richmond Law Review

When a governor commutes a sentence of death, typically to one of life imprisonment either with an extended mandatory term or without possibility of parole, how is this action to be understood? As former Governor Pat Brown's book about his commutation decisions illustrates, in a period of widespread support for the death penalty, each commutation contains an appeal for popular support and understanding as to why the decision was made. Where the case for commutation cannot be made to the public's satisfaction, a governor is not likely to act.

Pardon For Good And Sufficient Reasons, Kathleen Dean Moore

University of Richmond Law Review

The preamble to an executive grant of clemency from the Presi- dent of the United States implies that pardons are granted on the basis of "premises,... good and sufficient reasons." Yet, pardons have not always been regarded as the sort of acts that need to be justified by argument. In fact, most presidential pardons are issued without any statement of justification beyond the assurance that good reasons do exist. As a result, the issue of what constitutes good and sufficient reasons for a presidential pardon is seldom addressed and still unresolved.

Executive Clemency In Post-Furman Capital Cases, Michael L. Radelet, Barbara A. Zsembik

University of Richmond Law Review

In the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court invalidated virtually all existing death penalty statutes in the United States. Consequently, those jurisdictions that wanted to continue to execute were forced to revise their capital sentencing procedures. Since Furman,nearly all aspects of American death penalty law have been rewritten. Left unchanged by both the courts and the legislatures, however, are the ways in which states decide which death-sentenced inmates will have their sentences commuted through the powers of executive clemency.

The Quality Of Mercy: Race And Clemency In Florida Death Penalty Cases, 1924-1966, Margaret Vandiver

University of Richmond Law Review

The scholarly literature on capital punishment includes few empirical studies of executive clemency. Commutations in capital cases have been rare since 1972 when the current era of capital punishment began with the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Furman v. Georgia. A large proportion of pre-1972 death sentences were commuted; examination of clemency decisions in those cases promises to reveal much about the history of capital punishment in the United States. The present study attempts to identify factors which influenced decisions to grant commutations of Florida death sentences pre-Furman, focusing particularly on whether the race of defendants and victims influenced …

Federal Executive Clemency Power: The President's Prerogative To Escape Accountability, James N. Jorgensen

University of Richmond Law Review

The United States Constitution vests the President with "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Although Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph raised concerns about the executive branch possibly abusing the pardon power to conceal criminal conduct at the Constitutional Convention, Randolph's colleagues relied upon the presumption that a president would not break the law and defeated his motion to limit presidential pardon power to cases of treason. Recently, the scandalous Iran-Contra affair has demonstrated that, contrary to the Framers' expectations, presidents may circumvent or directly violate federal laws.