Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
What State Constitutional Law Can Tell Us About The Federal Constitution, Joseph Blocher
What State Constitutional Law Can Tell Us About The Federal Constitution, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
Courts and scholars have long sought to illuminate the relationship between state and federal constitutional law. Yet their attention, like the relationship itself, has largely been one-sided: State courts have consistently adopted federal constitutional law as their own, and scholars have attempted to illuminate why this is, and why it should or should not be so. By contrast, federal courts tend not to look to state constitutional law, even for persuasive authority. Nor have scholars argued at any length that federal courts can or should look to state constitutional law for guidance in answering the many constitutional questions common to …
Reverse Incorporation Of State Constitutional Law, Joseph Blocher
Reverse Incorporation Of State Constitutional Law, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
State supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court are the independent and final arbiters of their respective constitutions, and may therefore take different approaches to analogous state and federal constitutional issues. Such issues arise often, because the documents were modeled on each other and share many of the same guarantees. In answering them, state courts have, as a matter of practice, generally adopted federal constitutional doctrine as their own. Federal courts, by contrast, have largely ignored state constitutional law when interpreting the federal constitution. In McDonald v. Chicago, to take only the most recent example, the Court declined to …
Four Constitutional Limits That The Minimum Coverage Provision Respects, Neil S. Siegel
Four Constitutional Limits That The Minimum Coverage Provision Respects, Neil S. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
Opponents of the minimum coverage provision in the Affordable Care Act charge that if Congress can require most people to obtain health insurance or pay a certain amount of money, then Congress can impose whatever mandates it wishes—or, at least, whatever purchase mandates it wishes. This Essay refutes that claim by identifying four limits on the Commerce Clause that the minimum coverage provision honors. Congress may not use its commerce power: (1) to regulate noneconomic subject matter; (2) to impose a regulation that violates constitutional rights, including the right to bodily integrity; (3) to regulate at all, including by imposing …
Reasoning About The Irrational: The Roberts Court And The Future Of Constitutional Law, H. Jefferson Powell
Reasoning About The Irrational: The Roberts Court And The Future Of Constitutional Law, H. Jefferson Powell
Faculty Scholarship
Commentary on the future direction of the Roberts Court generally falls along lines that correlate with the commentators' political views on the desirability of the Court's recent decisions. A more informative approach is to look for opinions suggesting changes in the presuppositions with which the Justices approach constitutional decision making. In footnote 27 in his opinion for the Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller Second Amendment decision, Justice Scalia suggested a fundamental revision of the Court's assumptions about the role of judicial doctrine, and the concept of rationality, in constitutional law. Justice Scalia would eliminate the normative aspects …
The Regrettable Clause: United States V. Comstock And The Powers Of Congress, H. Jefferson Powell
The Regrettable Clause: United States V. Comstock And The Powers Of Congress, H. Jefferson Powell
Faculty Scholarship
In this Article, Powell argues that in Comstock, the Court encountered one of the oldest and most basic constitutional issues about the scope of congressional power-whether there are justiciable limits to the range of legitimate ends Congress may pursue. The Justices, without fully recognizing the fact, were taking sides in an ancient debate, and in doing so, they inadvertently reopened an issue that ought to be deemed long settled. Part II of the Article first addresses the question before the Court in Comstock, which was limited to a pure question of Article I law: is a specific provision of a …
Brief Of Constitutional Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Ernest A. Young
Brief Of Constitutional Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Conflicted Assumptions Of Modern Constitutional Law, H. Jefferson Powell
The Conflicted Assumptions Of Modern Constitutional Law, H. Jefferson Powell
Faculty Scholarship
Contribution to Symposium - The Nature of Judicial Authority: A Reflection on Philip Hamburger's Law and Judicial Duty
Constitutionalizing Local Politics, Joseph Blocher, Ilan Graff
Constitutionalizing Local Politics, Joseph Blocher, Ilan Graff
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Popular Constitutionalism And The State Attorneys General, Joseph Blocher
Popular Constitutionalism And The State Attorneys General, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
In her article Dead or Alive: Originalism as Popular Constitutionalism in Heller, Professor Reva Siegel argued that the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller relied on originalism to enforce understandings of the Second Amendment that were forged in the late twentieth century through popular constitutionalism. In this Response, Professor Joseph Blocher argues that those understandings reappeared in McDonald v. City of Chicago, in part through the efforts of thirty-eight state attorneys general (SAGs) who filed an amicus brief urging the Court to incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. The SAGs invoked federalism, but their arguments …
Golan V. Holder: Copyright In The Image Of The First Amendment, David L. Lange, Risa J. Weaver, Shiveh Roxana Reed
Golan V. Holder: Copyright In The Image Of The First Amendment, David L. Lange, Risa J. Weaver, Shiveh Roxana Reed
Faculty Scholarship
Does copyright violate the First Amendment? Professor Melville Nimmer asked this question forty years ago, and then answered it by concluding that copyright itself is affirmatively speech protective. Despite ample reason to doubt Nimmer’s response, the Supreme Court has avoided an independent, thoughtful, plenary review of the question. Copyright has come to enjoy an all-but-categorical immunity to First Amendment constraints. Now, however, the Court faces a new challenge to its back-of-the-hand treatment of this vital conflict. In Golan v. Holder the Tenth Circuit considered legislation (enacted pursuant to the Berne Convention and TRIPS) “restoring” copyright protection to millions of foreign …