Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

The "Horizontal Effect" Of Constitutional Rights, Stephen Gardbaum Dec 2003

The "Horizontal Effect" Of Constitutional Rights, Stephen Gardbaum

Michigan Law Review

Among the most fundamental issues in constitutional law is the scope of application of individual rights provisions and, in particular, their reach into the private sphere. This issue is also currently one of the most important and hotly debated in comparative constitutional law, where it is known under the rubric of "vertical" and "horizontal effect." These alternatives refer to whether constitutional rights regulate only the conduct of governmental actors in their dealings with private individuals (vertical) or also relations between private individuals (horizontal). In recent years, the horizontal position has been adopted to varying degrees, and after systematic scholarly and …


Vectoral Federalism, Scott Dodson Dec 2003

Vectoral Federalism, Scott Dodson

Georgia State University Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen Aug 2003

The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen

Michigan Law Review

Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional. As …


Compacts, Cartels, And Congressional Consent, Michael S. Greve Apr 2003

Compacts, Cartels, And Congressional Consent, Michael S. Greve

Missouri Law Review

Compacts, Cartels, and Congressional Consent argues that U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission was wrongly decided. Congressional “negatives,” including the Compact Clause invert the default rule for constitutionally suspect classes of state laws. Whereas ordinary state laws are permitted to go into (and remain in) effect unless and until Congress or the courts exercise their authority under the Supremacy Clause to state agreements that encroach on federal supremacy—which are unlawful in any event—the Supreme court has re-inverted the constitutional presumption and emptied the Compact Clause of all content. This Article explains the forgotten constitutional logic and wisdom of the …