Law Commons^™

King V. Burwell And The Chevron Doctrine: Did The Court Invite Judicial Activism?, Matthew A. Melone

Matthew A. Melone

No abstract provided.

Note: The Case For Earmarks, Chelsea Fernandez Gold

Chelsea Fernandez Gold

Americans’ confidence in Congress has sunk to historical lows and it seems that dysfunction and ineptitude remain at an all-time high. But it is not just the public that is frustrated with Washington’s failures; it is members of the political elite themselves. While the dysfunction plaguing the Capitol can be attributed to any number of factors, it is the contention of this paper that one way to "fix" Washington is to end the ban on earmarks. The termination of earmarks in Congress, and their ultimate shift over to the executive branch, has contributed to the ineffectiveness of the legislature and …

Before There Were Mouseholes: Resurrecting The Non-Delegation Doctrine, Joel Hood

Joel Hood

Most people are unaware that James Madison original drafted 17 amendments for the Bill of Rights. Even fewer know that the 16th was an express non-delegation amendment meant to protect the American people:

The powers delegated by the Constitution to the government of the United States, shall be exercised as therein appropriated, so that the Legislative shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial; not the Executive the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial; nor the Judicial the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive.

There are now over five-hundred federal agencies and departments. Some are …

Downstream Inundations Caused By Federal Flood Control Dam Operations In A Changing Climate: Getting The Proper Mix Of Takings, Tort, And Compensation, Robert H. Abrams, Jacquiline Bertelsen

Robert H Abrams

The 2012 United States Supreme Court decision in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States (AG&FC) presented the Court with a claim that the property of a landowner downstream of a flood control dam was taken without compensation as a result of non-permanent inundations of low lying portions of that parcel caused by a change in the dam’s pattern of releases. The Court held that that “government-induced flooding temporary in duration gains no automatic exemption from Takings Clause inspection” and must instead be tested according to the Court’s usual precedents governing temporary physical invasions and regulatory takings.[1] On …