Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Federalism (4)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Separation of powers (2)
- Abortion (1)
- Article III (1)
-
- Australia (1)
- Bluman v. FEC (1)
- CalOSHA (1)
- Campaign finance (1)
- Canada (1)
- Citizens United (1)
- Competency to be Executed (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitutional Interpretation (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Cultural History (1)
- Death Penalty (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Donald Trump (1)
- Elections (1)
- Electoral College (1)
- Eminent domain (1)
- Executive branch (1)
- Federal Election Campaign Act (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal jurisdiction (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Foreign Agent Registration Act (1)
- Foreign interference (1)
- Foreigners (1)
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Blurred Lines: How To Rationally Understand The “Rational Understanding” Doctrine After Madison V. Alabama, Cassidy Young
Blurred Lines: How To Rationally Understand The “Rational Understanding” Doctrine After Madison V. Alabama, Cassidy Young
Pepperdine Law Review
In Madison v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that a capital inmate’s inability to remember his crime did not render him incompetent to be executed. The Court reasoned that an individual who suffers from episodic memory loss may still “rationally understand” society’s reasons for sentencing him to death for a crime he once committed. This Note explores the impact of memory loss on a person’s self-identity, and consequently challenges the notion that a capital inmate who no longer remembers his crime can truly have a rational understanding of it. Specifically, this Note examines how memory loss substantially weakens the two …
Overruling Roe V. Wade: Lessons From The Death Penalty, Paul Benjamin Linton
Overruling Roe V. Wade: Lessons From The Death Penalty, Paul Benjamin Linton
Pepperdine Law Review
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court struck down the Georgia and Texas death penalty statutes, thereby calling into question the validity of every other state death penalty statute. In their concurring opinions, Justices Brennan and Marshall expressed the view that, given society’s gradual abandonment of the death penalty, capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Justice Powell and three other justices dissented, arguing that the Court had misread the state of the law regarding society’s acceptance of the death penalty. Four years after Furman, in a quintet of cases, the Court held that …
No Amendment? No Problem: Judges, “Informal Amendment,” And The Evolution Of Constitutional Meaning In The Federal Democracies Of Australia, Canada, India, And The United States, John V. Orth, John Gava, Arvind P. Bhanu, Paul T. Babie
No Amendment? No Problem: Judges, “Informal Amendment,” And The Evolution Of Constitutional Meaning In The Federal Democracies Of Australia, Canada, India, And The United States, John V. Orth, John Gava, Arvind P. Bhanu, Paul T. Babie
Pepperdine Law Review
This article considers the way in which judges play a significant role in developing the meaning of a constitution through the exercise of interpretive choices that have the effect of “informally amending” the text. We demonstrate this by examining four written federal democratic constitutions: those of the United States, the first written federal democratic constitution; India, the federal constitution of the largest democracy on earth; and the constitutions of Canada and Australia, both federal and democratic, but emerging from the English unwritten tradition. We divide our consideration of these constitutions into two ideal types, identified by Bruce Ackerman: the “revolutionary” …
Hybrid Federalism And The Employee Right To Disconnect, Paul M. Secunda
Hybrid Federalism And The Employee Right To Disconnect, Paul M. Secunda
Pepperdine Law Review
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) administers specific workplace and health standards that generally and expressly preempt the entire field of workplace safety and health law. However, where such federal OSHA standards do not exist or states have developed their own approved OSHA plans, OSHA does not merely set a regulatory floor either. A type of “hybrid federalism” has been established, meaning a strong federal-based field preemption approach to labor and employment law issues, but tied to a conflict preemption approach. Applying this hybrid preemption approach to the employee right to disconnect problem provides the best opportunity to …
A Defense Of The Electoral College In The Age Of Trump, John Yoo
A Defense Of The Electoral College In The Age Of Trump, John Yoo
Pepperdine Law Review
In the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, where Donald J. Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes but still secured victory in the Electoral College, renewed efforts to delegitimize or abolish the Electoral College system have surfaced. Critics, calling for a direct national vote for President, attacked the legitimacy of the election and decried the Constitution’s method of presidential selection as antiquated and undemocratic. Some legal scholars even suggested that the Electoral College must be abolished to disentangle it from America’s racist past and history of slavery. Recently, though, reformers in several States have banded …
Our Campaign Finance Nationalism, Eugene D. Mazo
Our Campaign Finance Nationalism, Eugene D. Mazo
Pepperdine Law Review
Campaign finance is the one area of election law that is most difficult to square with federalism. While voting has a strong federalism component—elections are run by the states and our elected officials represent concrete geographical districts—our campaign finance system, which is rooted in the First Amendment, almost entirely sidesteps the boundaries of American federalism. In so doing, our campaign finance system creates a tenuous connection between a lawmaker’s constituents, or the people who elect him, and the contributors who provide the majority of his campaign cash. The recent explosion of outside spending in American elections by wealthy individuals and …
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Pepperdine Law Review
Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …
Property Convergence In Takings Law, Maureen E. Brady
Property Convergence In Takings Law, Maureen E. Brady
Pepperdine Law Review
Although one of the key questions in a federal system is how authority should be allocated between the state and national governments, property law has rarely generated serious controversy on this front. Instead, property entitlements and the rules governing resource use have typically been the province of state and local actors. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that property rights are created at the state level. And while federal regulations—for example, environmental regulations—certainly limit property rights, state and local land-use laws and state nuisance and trespass rules serve as major constraints on property’s use and enjoyment. This feature of property …
The Past, Present, And Future Of Federalism: A Symposium Introduction, Derek T. Muller
The Past, Present, And Future Of Federalism: A Symposium Introduction, Derek T. Muller
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
“Drive-By” Jurisdiction: Congressional Oversight In Court, Daniel Epstein
“Drive-By” Jurisdiction: Congressional Oversight In Court, Daniel Epstein
Pepperdine Law Review
On July 9, 2020, in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not adequately consider the separation of powers concerns attendant to congressional subpoenas for presidential information. Given that the question presented in Mazars concerned whether Congress had a legitimate legislative purpose in subpoenaing the President’s personal records, the Supreme Court’s decision is anything but a model of clarity. The Court simultaneously opined that disputes “involving nonprivileged, private information” “do[ ] not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations” while claiming “congressional subpoenas for the President’s information unavoidably pit …