Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (3)
- Originalism (2)
- Blackstone (1)
- Comparative law (1)
- Constitution (1)
-
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Democratic decline (1)
- English and American administrative law (1)
- Executive power (1)
- Federal territories (1)
- Fiduciary (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Gerrymandering (1)
- Judicial ethics (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Legal history (1)
- Policing (1)
- Political theory (1)
- Preamble (1)
- Racial justice (1)
- Racial profiling (1)
- Removal power (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Unitary theorists (1)
- Vesting Clause (1)
- We the People (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rewriting Whren V. United States, Jonathan Feingold, Devon Carbado
Rewriting Whren V. United States, Jonathan Feingold, Devon Carbado
Faculty Scholarship
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whren v. United States—a unanimous opinion in which the Court effectively constitutionalized racial profiling. Despite its enduring consequences, Whren remains good law today. This Article rewrites the opinion. We do so, in part, to demonstrate how one might incorporate racial justice concerns into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, a body of law that has long elided and marginalized the racialized dimensions of policing. A separate aim is to reveal the “false necessity” of the Whren outcome. The fact that Whren was unanimous, and that even progressive Justices signed on, might lead one to conclude that …
Are People In Federal Territories Part Of “We The People Of The United States”?, Gary S. Lawson, Guy Seidman
Are People In Federal Territories Part Of “We The People Of The United States”?, Gary S. Lawson, Guy Seidman
Faculty Scholarship
In 1820, a unanimous Supreme Court proclaimed: “The United States is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories.” While that key point is simple, and perhaps even obvious, the constitutional implications of such a construction of “the United States” as including federal territories are potentially far reaching. In particular, the Constitution’s Preamble announces that the Constitution is authored by “We the People of the United States” and that the document is designed to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to the author and its “Posterity.” If inhabitants of federal territory are among “We the …
Countering Gerrymandered Courts, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Countering Gerrymandered Courts, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
The key insight in Professor Miriam Seifter's outstanding article Countermajoritarian Legislatures is that state legislatures are usually antidemocratic due to partisan gerrymandering, whereas state governors and judiciaries are insulated from gerrymandering by statewide elections (or selection), and thus they should have a more prominent role in framing election law and in enforcing the separation of powers.
This Piece offers afriendly amendment: These observations are true, so long as states do not gerrymander their state supreme courts into antidemocratic districts. The problem is that historically, judicial elections emerged generally as districted elections, and often with regional and partisan politics shaping those …
The Immorality Of Originalism, Jack M. Beermann
The Immorality Of Originalism, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The central claim of this essay is that in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is immoral to choose original intent over social welfare, broadly conceived. Once this argument is laid out and defended on its own terms, I support the central claim with a variety of arguments, including the defective process pursuant to which the Constitution was enacted, the deeply flawed substantive content of the Constitution, the incongruity of fidelity to the views of a generation of revolutionaries, the current virtual imperviousness of the Constitution to amendment, the failure of the Constitution to resolve fundamental questions concerning the allocation of …
Removal Of Context: Blackstone, Limited Monarchy, And The Limits Of Unitary Originalism, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Removal Of Context: Blackstone, Limited Monarchy, And The Limits Of Unitary Originalism, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court's recent decisions that the President has an unconditional or indefeasible removal power rely on textual and historical assumptions and a "removal of context." This article focuses on the "executive power" part of the Vesting Clause and particularly the unitary theorists' misuse of Blackstone. Unitary executive theorists overlook the problems of relying on England's limited monarchy: the era's rise of Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown and its power to eliminate or regulate (i.e., make defeasible) royal prerogatives. Unitary theorists provide no evidence that executive removal was ever identified as a "royal prerogative" or a default royal power. The …
Why Judges Can't Save Democracy, Robert L. Tsai
Why Judges Can't Save Democracy, Robert L. Tsai
Faculty Scholarship
In The Specter of Dictatorship,1 David Driesen has written a learned, lively book about the dangers of autocracy, weaving together incisive observations about democratic backsliding in other countries with a piercing critique of American teetering on the brink of executive authoritarianism at home. Driesen draws deeply and faithfully on the extant literature on comparative constitutionalism and democracy studies. He also builds on the work of scholars of the American political system who have documented the largely one-way transfer of power over foreign affairs to the executive branch. Driesen's thesis has a slight originalist cast, holding that "the Founders aimed …