Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Department Of Justice Oversight: Preserving Our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 107th Cong., Dec. 6, 2001 (Statement Of Neal Kumar Katyal, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Neal K. Katyal
Testimony Before Congress
No abstract provided.
"Shut Up He Explained", Mark V. Tushnet
"Shut Up He Explained", Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Part I of this Commentary examines the conversational model of politics. I argue that the virtues Bennett finds in the conversational model exist only when, and to the extent that, participants in civil and political society can engage in undominated conversation. The requirement that conversation be undominated generates a substantial set of social prerequisites, mostly dealing with equality. And yet, determining what social arrangements actually satisfy those prerequisites is itself a matter of constitutional controversy. Resolving such controversies through politics is no solution, because the political arena is where we seek to ensure that nondomination prevails in civil society, and, …
Legislative Constitutional Interpretation, Neal K. Katyal
Legislative Constitutional Interpretation, Neal K. Katyal
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This is an Essay about "the how" of constitutional interpretation. Much attention has been devoted to the question of how the Constitution is interpreted in courts. Rather little attention has been devoted to the question of how the Constitution is interpreted elsewhere in the government. The Constitution tells us that Congress, the President, and state legislators and courts must adhere to its terms, but it does not tell us how much interpretive power each actor should have, nor does it prescribe rules for each actor to use when interpreting the text. I argue that constitutional interpretation by Congress is, and …
Subconstitutional Constitutional Law: Supplement, Sham, Or Substitute?, Mark V. Tushnet
Subconstitutional Constitutional Law: Supplement, Sham, Or Substitute?, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In this brief Comment I make two points. First, the subconstitutional doctrines appear to have the advantage of allowing elected lawmakers to pursue whatever course they wish, as long as they satisfy the requirements of these subconstitutional doctrines. In practice, however, what appears to be a provisional invalidation based on subconstitutional law turns out to be - and, indeed, might be expected at the moment of decision to be - a final, unrevisable decision. Further, courts might strategically deploy these sub constitutional doctrines to avoid the sting of the charge that they are foreclosing legislative choice while effectively doing so. …