Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Law
Section 7: Federalism, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 7: Federalism, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Rights And Rules: An Overview, Matthew D. Adler, Michael C. Dorf
Rights And Rules: An Overview, Matthew D. Adler, Michael C. Dorf
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Prior to recent decades, the United States Supreme Court often invoked the political question doctrine to avoid deciding controversial questions of individual rights. By the 1970s and 1980s, standing limits traced to Article III’s case-or-controversy language had replaced the political question doctrine as the favored justiciability device. Although both political question and standing doctrines remain tools in the Court’s arsenal of threshold decision making,3 in the last decade the Court has turned with increasing frequency to the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges to perform the gatekeeping function. However, although there is a considerable body of scholarship concerning the conventional …
Peaches, Speech, And Clarence Thomas: Yes, California, There Is A Justice Who Understands The Ramifications Of Controlling Commercial Speech, Jennifer R. Franklin
Peaches, Speech, And Clarence Thomas: Yes, California, There Is A Justice Who Understands The Ramifications Of Controlling Commercial Speech, Jennifer R. Franklin
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court's 1998-1999 Term: Fourth Amendment Decisions, Kathryn R. Urbonya
Supreme Court's 1998-1999 Term: Fourth Amendment Decisions, Kathryn R. Urbonya
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Indirect Constitutional Discourse: A Comment On Meese, Robert F. Nagel
Indirect Constitutional Discourse: A Comment On Meese, Robert F. Nagel
Publications
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court Section 1983 Developments: October 1998 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Supreme Court Section 1983 Developments: October 1998 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judges And Federalism: A Comment On "Justice Kennedy's Vision Of Federalism", Robert F. Nagel
Judges And Federalism: A Comment On "Justice Kennedy's Vision Of Federalism", Robert F. Nagel
Publications
No abstract provided.
How Constitutional Law Casebooks Perpetuate The Myth Of Judicial Supremacy, Neal Devins
How Constitutional Law Casebooks Perpetuate The Myth Of Judicial Supremacy, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Reanimator: Mark Tushnet And The Second Coming Of The Imperial Presidency, Neal Devins
Reanimator: Mark Tushnet And The Second Coming Of The Imperial Presidency, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Federalism, Individual Liberty, And The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act Of 1998, Adam C. Pritchard
Constitutional Federalism, Individual Liberty, And The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act Of 1998, Adam C. Pritchard
Articles
This Article proceeds in four parts. Part I provides background on the historical development of constitutional federalism, the Supreme Court's decisions in this area, and the apparent demise of constitutional limits on federal power. Part II then reviews the Court's revival of constitutional federalism over the last decade. Based on this review, I argue that the Supreme Court's current federalism doctrine can be understood as a "constrained libertarianism" that attempts to use constitutional structure as a check on government interference with individual liberty. In this model, states are respected in our constitutional system because of the counterbalance that they provide …
How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian
How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian
Scholarship@WashULaw
Learned commentators have called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA" or "the Act") "perhaps the most unconstitutional statute in the history of the nation" and "the most egregious violation of the separation of powers doctrine in American constitutional history." In the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court struck down the Act in its applications to state and local governments, declaring that "RFRA contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance." The Act's applications to federal law, however, survived Boerne, which means that plaintiffs with religious freedom claims against …
On The Meaning And Impact Of The Physician-Assisted Suicide Cases, Yale Kamisar
On The Meaning And Impact Of The Physician-Assisted Suicide Cases, Yale Kamisar
Book Chapters
I read every newspaper article I could find on the meaning and impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 1997 decisions in Washington v Glucksberg and Vacco v Quill. I came away with the impression that some proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) were unable or unwilling publicly to recognize the magnitude of the setback they suffered when the Court handed down its rulings in the PAS cases.
Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker
Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker
Articles
The Supreme Court has ushered in the new millennium with a renewed emphasis on federalism-based limits to Congress's regulatory authority in general, and Congress's Section 5 power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment in particular. In a recent string of cases, the Court has refined and narrowed Section 5's enforcement power in two significant ways.1 First, the Court made clear that Congress lacks the authority to interpret the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions themselves, and may only "enforce" the judiciary's definition of Fourteenth Amendment violations. 2 Second, the Court embraced a relatively stringent requirement concerning the relationship between means …
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Lilly V. Virginia Glimmers Of Hope For The Confrontation Clause?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In 1662, in The Case of Thomas Tong and Others, which involved charges of treason against several defendants, the judges of the King's Bench conferred on a crucial set of points of procedure. As reported by one of the judges, Sir John Kelyng, the judges agreed unanimously that a pretrial confession made to the authorities was evidence against the Party himself who made the Confession, and indeed, if adequately proved could support a conviction of that party without additional witnesses to the treason itself. But -- again unanimously, and quite definitively -- the judges also agreed that the confession cannot …
Uncoupling The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Uncoupling The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Articles
The law of takings couples together matters that should be treated independently. The conventional view, shared by courts and commentators alike, has been that any takings case can be resolved in one of two ways: either there is a taking and compensation is due, or there is no taking and no compensation is due. These results are fine as long as one holding or the other serves the two central concerns of the Takings Clause - eficiency and justice. But a problem arises when the two purposes behind the law of takings come into cordhct, as they readily might. It …
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Does Dickerson v. U.S., reaffirming Miranda and striking down §3501 (the federal statute purporting to "overrule" Miranda), demonstrate judicial arrogance? Or does the legislative history of §3501 demonstrate the arrogance of Congress? Shortly after Dickerson v. U.S. reaffirmed Miranda and invalidated §3501, a number of Supreme Court watchers criticized the Court for its "judicial arrogance" in peremptorily rejecting Congress' test for the admissibility of confessions. The test, pointed out the critics, had been adopted by extensive hearings and debate about Miranda's adverse impact on law enforcement. The Dickerson Court did not discuss the legislative history of §3501 at all. However, …