Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fostering Mutual Respect And Cooperation Between State Courts And State Legislatures: A Sound Alternative To A Tort Tug Of War, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens, Monica G. Parham
Fostering Mutual Respect And Cooperation Between State Courts And State Legislatures: A Sound Alternative To A Tort Tug Of War, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens, Monica G. Parham
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Checking Congress And Balancing Federalism: A Lesson From Separation-Of-Powers Jurisprudence, Keith Werham
Checking Congress And Balancing Federalism: A Lesson From Separation-Of-Powers Jurisprudence, Keith Werham
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
Conscience, Judging, And Conscientious Judging, Gene E. Franchini
Conscience, Judging, And Conscientious Judging, Gene E. Franchini
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Judging requires applying the law instead of personal morals, philosophy, or policy of the community. Doing so requires a respect for the separation of powers between branches of government. Justice Franchini of the New Mexico Supreme Court reflects on this challenge for judges through a personal anecdote.
Double Jeopardy And Punishment: Why An As Applied Approach, As Applied To Separation Of Powers Doctrines, Is Unconstitutional, Todd W. Wyatt
Double Jeopardy And Punishment: Why An As Applied Approach, As Applied To Separation Of Powers Doctrines, Is Unconstitutional, Todd W. Wyatt
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment will argue that an as applied approach allows the executive branch, whether at the state or federal level, to encroach into the legislative realm by rendering a statute unconstitutional as a result of the way the statute is administered. Section II of this Comment will begin by examining the history of the as applied and on its face double jeopardy approaches during the last 20 years. After a close examination of the decisions in Halper and Hudson in sections II.B and II.C, this Comment will explain why the holding of Hudson, though correct in its result, was …
The Public Health Improvement Process In Alaska: Toward A Model Public Health Law, Lawrence O. Gostin, James G. Hodge Jr.
The Public Health Improvement Process In Alaska: Toward A Model Public Health Law, Lawrence O. Gostin, James G. Hodge Jr.
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In this Article, we present the findings of our study on the improvement of public health law in Alaska. We examine and analyze the public health laws supporting the state's public health system. The fact that Alaska has attained statehood comparatively recently, and has a governing structure involving state, municipal, rural, and tribal entities presents unique opportunities for the State to improve its public health system and its supporting legal infrastructure
The Section 5 Mystique, Morrison, And The Future Of Federal Antidiscrimination Law, Margaret H. Lemos, Samuel Estreicher
The Section 5 Mystique, Morrison, And The Future Of Federal Antidiscrimination Law, Margaret H. Lemos, Samuel Estreicher
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Let's Clear The Air: Enforcing Civil Penalties Against Federal Violators Of The Clean Air Act, Lisa M. Schenck
Let's Clear The Air: Enforcing Civil Penalties Against Federal Violators Of The Clean Air Act, Lisa M. Schenck
GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works
The Clean Air Act (CAA) includes enforcement provisions by which violators of the Act can be held civilly liable for penalties. When federal agencies violate the CAA, however, the Constitution and the sovereign immunity doctrine serve as obstacles to civil enforcement. Federal agencies contend that the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, unitary executive theory, and "case or controversy" justiciability requirement bar the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from proceeding against them in civil enforcement actions. This Article addresses these arguments and examines the executive branch's approach to enforcing the Act against federal agencies. Federal agencies also have asserted the …
Presidential Non-Enforcement Of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes, Dawn E. Johnsen
Presidential Non-Enforcement Of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes, Dawn E. Johnsen
Articles by Maurer Faculty
This article, published in Law & Contemporary Problems, was presented at a Duke Law School conference, The Constitution Under Clinton: A Critical Assessment. It examines a recurring, unsettled issue of executive power: how the President best fulfills his constitutional responsibilities when confronted with the enforcement of a statute that he believes is unconstitutional. What should the President do if he believes enforcing a statutory provision would violate the Constitution? Should, for example, a President comply with a congressional command that he believes would violate the constitutional rights of individuals or compromise presidential power? The article examines the two prevailing approaches …
Modifying The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence—A Separation Of Powers Issue, Robert G. Lawson
Modifying The Kentucky Rules Of Evidence—A Separation Of Powers Issue, Robert G. Lawson
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
How do you modify laws that simultaneously exist as statutes and rules of court? For reasons that are described elsewhere and need not be repeated here, the Kentucky Rules of Evidence (K.R.E.) came into existence through concurrent enactment by the General Assembly and Kentucky Supreme Court and thus are endowed with all the attributes of both statutes and rules of court. So, how do you change them when the inevitable need to do so arises, a question made both interesting and difficult by the fact that there is no institutional mechanism for concurrent lawmaking by the General Assembly and supreme …
Impeachment As Congressional Constitutional Interpretation, Neal K. Katyal
Impeachment As Congressional Constitutional Interpretation, Neal K. Katyal
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Constitutionalists have assumed, too quickly in my view, that symmetry should exist between the interpretive styles of the courts and Congress. This assumption, which I shall call the myth of interpretive symmetry, slights the many reasons why an interpretive method may work well in one area and not work as well in another. Instead of mapping out all these possible divergences, I illustrate the point with three examples: the roles of history, precedent, and moral philosophy. I show how, in each instance, arguments can be made to suggest that divergent institutional roles should be taken into account in formulating a …