Law Commons^™

The Role Of Courts In Improving The Legislative Process, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

ג'ון הארט גרוניס?: פסיקתו של הנשיא גרוניס לאור התיאוריה החוקתית של אילי (John Hart Grunis?: The Jurisprudence Of Chief Justice Grunis In Light Of Ely's Constitutional Theory), Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Does The Observer Have An Effect?: An Analysis Of The Use Of The Dialogue Metaphor In Canada's Courts, Richard Haigh, Michael Sobkin

Richard Haigh

In "Charter Dialogue Revisited-Or 'Much Ado About Metaphors,"' it is noted that the original idea behind the dialogue metaphor was simply to describe Canada's constitutional structure. Despite this, the metaphor has been criticized for having normative content and influencing courts and legislatures. In this commentary, the authors analyze all Supreme Court of Canada and lower court uses of the dialogue metaphor and conclude that, with some exceptions, the courts have employed the metaphor properly, i.e., descriptively. Since, however, the metaphor can be misapplied-used other than to describe or explain the relationship between the courts and legislatures in Canada-the authors recommend …

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act And The Separation Of Powers, Scott A. Boykin

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Plenary Power Is Dead! Long Live Plenary Power, Michael Kagan

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

For decades, scholars of immigration law have anticipated the demise of the plenary power doctrine. The Supreme Court could have accomplished this in its recent decision in Kerry v. Din, or it could have reaffirmed plenary power. Instead, the Court produced a splintered decision that did neither. This Essay examines the long process of attrition that has significantly gutted the traditional plenary power doctrine with regard to procedural due process, while leaving it largely intact with regard to substantive constitutional rights.

Three Variations Of The Supreme Court's Legal Mind, Albert Lebowitz

Akron Law Review

With their independence, the Justices emerged, not, as Madison imagined them, a unified definition of reason but with diverging strains of legal mindedness that, as they almost inevitably clashed with each other, developed that added strength which emerges from dialectic. Madison's vision may have been too simple.

Constitutional theory is heavily concentrated in the area of judicial review, and the three issues raised in Marbury v. Madison are still subjects of heated debate and controversy. It is remarkable how topical this opinion remains.

Can The Eu Be A Constitutional System Without Universal Access To Judical Review, Brian Libgober

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Comment engages with a central dilemma about the legal order of the European Union: is the EU a constitutional system, a treaty system, or a hybrid system for which we must develop a new conceptual vocabulary? Besides intrinsic interest, resolving this categorization problem is important for deciding a number of issues in European Union law. For example, are legal strategies that are normally available to parties in international law viable in the European legal order? Should Community law be supreme over national law? If so, what limits should be placed on that supremacy, and “who should have the ultimate …

The Coherentism Of Democracy And Distrust, Michael C. Dorf

Michael C. Dorf

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Existence Conditions And Judicial Review, Michael Dorf, Matthew Adler

Michael C. Dorf

Although critics of judicial review sometimes call for making the entire Constitution nonjusticiable, many familiar norms of constitutional law state what we call "existence conditions" that are necessarily enforced by judicial actors charged with the responsibility of applying, and thus as a preliminary step, identifying, propositions of sub-constitutional law such as statutes. Article I, Section 7, which sets forth the procedures by which a bill becomes a law, is an example: a putative law that did not go through the Article I, Section 7 process and does not satisfy an alternative test for legal validity (such as the treaty-making provision …

Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf

Michael C. Dorf

Recent scholarship in political science and law challenges the view that judicial review in the United States poses what Alexander Bickel famously called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." Although courts do regularly invalidate state and federal action on constitutional grounds, they rarely depart substantially from the median of public opinion. When they do so depart, if public opinion does not eventually come in line with the judicial view, constitutional amendment, changes in judicial personnel, and/or changes in judicial doctrine typically bring judicial understandings closer to public opinion. But if the modesty of courts dissolves Bickel's worry, it raises a distinct one: Are …

Moral Rights, Judicial Review, And Democracy: A Response To Horacio Spector, Laura S. Underkuffler

Laura S. Underkuffler

No abstract provided.

Agency Adjudication And Judicial Nondelegation: An Article Iii Canon, Mila Sohoni

Northwestern University Law Review

The rules governing judicial review of adjudication by federal agencies are insensitive to a critical separation of powers principle. Article III jurisprudence requires different treatment of agency adjudication depending on whether the agency is adjudicating a “private right” or a “public right.” When agencies adjudicate private rights, review of the agency adjudication must be available to an Article III court on a direct appellate basis. In contrast, Article III jurisprudence does not require review to an Article III court on a direct appellate basis of agency adjudications of purely public rights. That means that federal courts reviewing agency adjudications of …

Plenary Power Is Dead! Long Live Plenary Power!, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

For decades, scholars of immigration law have anticipated the demise of the plenary power doctrine. The Supreme Court could have accomplished this in its recent decision in Kerry v. Din, or it could have re-affirmed plenary power. Instead, the Court produced a splintered decision that did neither. This essay examines the long process of attrition that has significantly gutted the traditional plenary power doctrine with regard to procedural due process, while leaving it largely intact with regard to substantive constitutional rights.

Agora: Reflections On Zivotofsky V. Kerry : Historical Gloss, The Recognition Power, And Judicial Review, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Introduction To Agora: Reflections On Zivotofsky V. Kerry, Curtis A. Bradley, Carlos M. Vazquez

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Separations Of Wealth: Inequality And The Erosion Of Checks And Balances, Kate Andrias

Faculty Scholarship

American government is dysfunctional: Gridlock, filibusters, and expanding presidential power, everyone seems to agree, threaten our basic system of constitutional governance. Who, or what, is to blame? In the standard account, the fault lies with the increasing polarization of our political parties. That standard story, however, ignores an important culprit: Concentrated wealth and its organization to achieve political ends. The only way to understand our current constitutional predicament – and to rectify it – is to pay more attention to the role that organized wealth plays in our system of checks and balances.

This Article shows that the increasing concentration …

Constitutionalism Outside The Courts, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

This essay is a chapter to be included in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook on the U.S. Constitution. Using the actions of Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus during the Little Rock crisis of 1957 and the U.S. Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Cooper v. Aaron as a lens, it explores constitutional interpretation and enforcement by extrajudicial institutions. I explore the critique of Cooper’s notion of judicial supremacy by departmentalists like Walter Murphy, empirical scholars skeptical of judicial efficacy like Gerald Rosenberg, and popular constitutionalists like Larry Kramer and Mark Tushnet. I also consider four distinct institutional forms of extrajudicial constitutional interpretation and …

Proportionality And The Relevance Of Rights, Jud Mathews

Jud Mathews