Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Resolving Alj Removal Protections Problem Following Lucia, Spencer Davenport
Resolving Alj Removal Protections Problem Following Lucia, Spencer Davenport
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
When the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC and held that administrative law judges (ALJs) are Officers under the Constitution, the Court opened a flood of constitutional issues around the status of ALJs and related government positions. One central issue relates to ALJs’ removal protections. ALJs currently have two layers of protection between them and the President. In an earlier Supreme Court decision, the Court held that two layers of tenure protection between an “Officer of the United States” and the President was unconstitutional as it deprived the President the power to hold his officers accountable. As impartial adjudicators, ALJs …
Coin, Currency, And Constitution: Reconsidering The National Bank Precedent, David S. Schwartz
Coin, Currency, And Constitution: Reconsidering The National Bank Precedent, David S. Schwartz
Michigan Law Review
Review of Eric Lomazoff's Reconstructing the National Bank Controversy: Politics and Law in the Early American Republic.
Fixing America's Founding, Maeve Glass
Fixing America's Founding, Maeve Glass
Michigan Law Review
Review of Jonathan Gienapp's The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era.
Translating The Constitution, Jack M. Balkin
Translating The Constitution, Jack M. Balkin
Michigan Law Review
Review of Lawrence Lessig's Fidelity and Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution.
Segregation In The Galleries: A Reconsideration, Richard Primus
Segregation In The Galleries: A Reconsideration, Richard Primus
Michigan Law Review Online
When constitutional lawyers talk about the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to questions of race, they often men-tion that the spectators’ galleries in Congress were racially segregated when Congress debated the Amendment.1 If the Thirty-Ninth Congress practiced racial segregation, the thinking goes, then it probably did not mean to prohibit racial segregation.2 As an argument about constitutional interpretation, this line of thinking has both strengths and weaknesses. But this brief Essay is not about the interpretive consequences, if any, of segregation in the congressional galleries during the 1860s. It is about the factual claim that the galleries …