Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Justice Thomas' Kelo Dissent, Or, "History As A Grab Bag Of Principles", David L. Breau
Justice Thomas' Kelo Dissent, Or, "History As A Grab Bag Of Principles", David L. Breau
ExpressO
In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that creating jobs and increasing tax revenues satisfy the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that property be "taken for public use." Justice Thomas joined the dissenters, but authored a separate opinion arguing that the Public Use Clause was originally understood as a substantive limitation that allowed the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public actually uses, the taken property. This article demonstrates that much of the historical evidence that Justice Thomas provides in his dissent to support a narrow original understanding of public use in …
The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says, Randy E. Barnett
The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says, Randy E. Barnett
ExpressO
Although the Ninth Amendment appears on its face to protect unenumerated individual rights of the same sort as those that were enumerated in the Bill of Rights, courts and scholars have long deprived it of any relevance to constitutional adjudication. With the growing interest in originalist methods of interpretation since the 1980s, however, this situation has changed. In the past twenty years, five originalist models of the Ninth Amendment have been propounded by scholars: The state law rights model, the residual rights model, the individual natural rights model, the collective rights model, and the federalism model. This article examines thirteen …
Judicial Review Of Special Interest Spending: The General Welfare Clause And The Fiduciary Law Of The Founders, Robert G. Natelson
Judicial Review Of Special Interest Spending: The General Welfare Clause And The Fiduciary Law Of The Founders, Robert G. Natelson
Faculty Law Review Articles
This article explores the fiduciary law of the founding fathers to determine whether it was part of the constitutional design for the Judiciary to review special interest appropriations, and, if so, how the courts might proceed. The author’s findings suggest that, at least from the standpoint of the original understanding of the Constitution, prior judicial deference to the Legislature has been excessive and that there are solid constitutional grounds in arguing for a more searching standard of review.