Law Commons^™

Questioning Deference, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

This article examines the accepted axiom that courts should defer to the government's actions during national security crises even when such actions potentially violate citizens' constitutional rights. The paper questions two assumptions underlying that axiom - first, that executive officials are best equipped to determine when security needs justify liberty infringements and, second, that judges are particularly unqualified to meddle in security issues, even when civil liberties are involved. Relying on psychological theories regarding the role that fear plays in skewing risk assessment and historical analyses of past crises, the paper argues that times of crisis lend themselves to unnecessary …

Hong Kong Right Of Abode: Ng Siu Tung & (And) Others V. Director Of Immigration - Constitutional And Human Rights At The Mercy Of China, Teresa Martin

San Diego International Law Journal

This Comment argues that the Court's refusal to sidestep the Standing Committee's reinterpretation using either the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, or the judgments previously rendered clause in the Basic Law, signifies its capitulation to the Standing Committee, and its inability to protect constitutional rights and/or human rights in Hong Kong. This Comment will first give a brief background on the concept of one country, two systems and the drafting of the basic law. Second, it will introduce the Right of Abode cases, and explain the constitutional crisis of 1999. Third, it analyzes Ng Siu Tung & Others v. Director of …

Lords Of Democracy: The Judicialization Of "Pure Politics" In The United States And Germany, Russell A. Miller

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Political Origins Of The New Constitutionalism, Ran Hirschl

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Globalization, Courts, and Judicial Power Symposium

Marbury V. Madison And European Union "Constitutional" Review, George A. Bermann

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison specifically raises the question of the legitimacy of a "horizontal" species of judicial review, that is, review by courts of the exercise of powers by the coordinate branches of government. The same question could be asked with respect to judicial review in the European Union. More particularly, how problematic or contestable has "horizontal" judicial review been within the European Union as a matter of principle? And, irrespective of its contestability, how have the courts of the European Union exercised "horizontal" review? We will find, however, that it is not the "horizontal" …

Putting The Democracy In Democracy And Distrust: The Coherentist Case For Representation Reinforcement, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers

No abstract provided.

Judicial Review And Diversity, Deseriee A. Kennedy

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Judicial Review In The United States And In The Wto: Some Similarities And Differences, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Among international organizations, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is widely credited with having the most effective dispute settlement system. Its highly developed dispute settlement system, which is one of the few in international law to include a standing appellate body, invites comparisons to the institution of judicial review in the United States under the paradigm of Marbury v. Madison. Such a comparison yields insights about both the WTO dispute settlement system and Marbury-style judicial review. This article first notes an important parallel between the two systems: like the WTO, judicial review in the United States began as the …

Interpreting Constitutions Comparatively: Some Cautionary Notes, With Reference To Affirmative Action, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

It has now become the conventional wisdom that many justices on the United States Supreme Court are thinking about the relevance of comparative constitutional law to the interpretation of the United States Constitution. An emerging conservative critique of doing so questions the democratic legitimacy of the practice. I believe that those questions are badly formed, but that other questions are worth raising about the (perhaps) emerging practice. In this comment I identify some reasons for caution about the use of transnational comparative law in interpreting domestic constitutions. Some reasons are institutional, others arise from the doctrinal context within which particular …

Public Ruses, James E. Krier, Christopher Serkin

Articles

The public use requirement of eminent domain law may be working its way back into the United States Constitution. To be sure, the words "public use" appear in the document-and in many state constitutions as well, but the federal provision applies to the states in any event-as one of the Fifth Amendment's limitations on the government's inherent power to take private property against the will of its owners. (The other limitation is that "just compensation" must be paid, of which more later.) Any taking of private property, the text suggests, must be for public use. Those words, however, have amounted …

The Secret Life Of The Political Question Doctrine, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

"Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court."

The irony, of course, is that Marbury v. Madison, itself, "made" a political question, and the answer the Court gave was deeply political as well. As everyone reading this essay knows, the case arose out of a bitter political controversy, and the opinion for the Court was a carefully crafted political document - "a masterwork of indirection," according to Robert McCloskey's well-known characterization, "a brilliant example of Chief Justice Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming …

The Original Meaning Of The Judicial Power, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this paper, the author refutes any claim that judicial review was invented in Marbury v. Madison, or that, because it is contrary to the original meaning of the Constitution, it must be justified by some nonoriginalist interpretive methodology. He will do so, not by discerning the shadowy and often counterfactual "intentions" of the founding generation, but by presenting as comprehensively as he can what the founders actually said during the constitutional convention, in state ratification conventions, and immediately after ratification. These statements, taken cumulatively, leave no doubt that the founders contemplated judicial nullification of legislation enacted by the …

Sunsetting Judicial Opinions, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Contemporary constitutional law, in its quest for judicial restraint, has primarily focused on "the how" of judging - what interpretive methods will constrain the decisionmaker? This Article, by contrast, focuses on the "when"- if there are reasons to think that today's judicial decisions might later prove to be problematic, then are there methods that alter the timing of those decisions' impact to produce better outcomes? This Article outlines one new method for judicial decisionmaking in the post-9/11 world. Informed by pervasive legislative practices, I contend that the Supreme Court should prospectively declare that some of its national security opinions will …

Constitutional Hardball, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For the past several years I have been noticing a phenomenon that seems to me new in my lifetime as a scholar of constitutional law. I call the phenomenon constitutional hardball. This Essay develops the idea that there is such a practice, that there is a sense in which it is new, and that its emergence (or re-emergence) is interesting because it signals that political actors understand that they are in a position to put in place a new set of deep institutional arrangements of a sort I call a constitutional order. A shorthand sketch of constitutional hardball is this: …

Out Of Bounds, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Lawrence v. Texas creates a crisis for inclusive constitutionalism. Too often, advocates of inclusion and tolerance wish to include only those ideas and groups with which they agree. The test for true inclusion and tolerance, however, is whether we are willing to protect groups when they engage in conduct of which we disapprove. It follows that the boundaries of inclusion cannot be established simply by moral argument; yet, any plausible version of constitutional law must use some method to bound the people and activity that it protects. Defenders of inclusive constitutionalism have not been successful in identifying a method, independent …

Marbury V. Madison Around The World, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

To put the point somewhat strongly for emphasis, the U.S. system of judicial review is now something of an outlier among systems of constitutional review. In this Essay, I consider three aspects of such systems: the structures of review, the theories of review, and the forms of review. My aim is primarily one of description, aiming to highlight the ways in which the U.S. system resembles and differs from the newer systems of judicial review. The U.S. system of judicial review has close-and more distant-relatives in each of these categories. However, the U.S. system remains distinctive in that it combines …