Constitutional Law Commons^™

Commentary: Campaign Finance In The Wake Of Citizens United, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 583 (2011), Thomas E. Mann

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Small-Donor Public Financing In The Post-Citizens United Era, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 619 (2011), Monica Youn

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Capitalist Joker: The Strange Origins, Disturbing Past, And Uncertain Future Of Corporate Personhood In American Law, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 643 (2011), David H. Gans, Douglas T. Kendall

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

So What If Corporations Aren't People?, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 701 (2011), Ilya Shapiro, Caitlyn W. Mccarthy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizens United And Tiered Personhood, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 717 (2011), Atiba R. Ellis

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Convicted By A Sleeping Jury: Harmless Error Or A Challenge To The Integrity Of Our Criminal Justice System, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 751 (2011), Rhandi Childress

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

One Day Criminal Careers: The Armed Career Criminal Act's Different Occassions Provisions, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 963 (2011), Jenny W.L. Osborne

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Roberts’ Rules: The Assertiveness Of Rules-Based Jurisprudence, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Back To The Future? The Effects Of Citizens United V. Fec In The 2010 Election, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 595 (2011), Peter L. Francia

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Levinson Is To Mr. Justice "Isaiah" As St. Paul Was To The Prophet Isaiah, Richard H. Weisberg

Articles

The article critiques Professor Sanford Levinson's defense of compromise in constitutionalism, arguing that while compromise is ubiquitous, it is not inherently just or morally sound. The author, Richard Weisberg, contends that Levinson's flexible hermeneutic approach risks degrading textual integrity and ethical standards, particularly when compromise is elevated to a norm. Weisberg advocates for maintaining the integrity of sacred and legal texts, emphasizing the dangers of interpretive flexibility, especially in emergencies, and draws parallels to historical examples like Vichy France's complicity in Nazi policies.

Grossly Disproportional To Whose Offense? Why The (Mis)Application Of Constitutional Jurisprudence On Proceeds Forfeiture Matters, Amanda S. Bersinger

Georgia Law Review

To pass constitutional muster, fines-of which punitive
forfeitures are one type-must not be grossly
disproportional to the gravity of the offense from which
they arise. Currently, the United States Courts of Appeals
exhibit a split in their treatment of forfeiture of proceeds
acquired incident to a criminal enterprise. A majority of
courts to address the issue have held that proceeds
forfeitures are not punitive fines and thus escape
constitutional scrutiny. Other courts, including the
Fourth Circuit in the recent case United States v.
Jalaram, Inc., have concluded that proceeds forfeiture, like

that of instrumentalities of a crime, is punitive and …

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering—October 2009 Term, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Demosprudence In Comparative Perspective, Brian E. Ray

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This article critically examines the debate over demosprudence. It adopts a comparative - specifically South African - perspective to consider what it means for a court to act demosprudentially and why the practice may have particular value in developing democracies like South Africa. Guinier connects demosprudence to the broader concept of democratic constitutionalism developed by Reva Siegel and Robert Post. Democratic constitutionalism in turn is part of what Jack Balkin describes as "a renaissance of liberal constitutional thought that has emerged in the last five years." This renaissance is characterized by three major themes: constitutional fidelity, democratic constitutionalism, and redemptive …

An Illusory Right To Appeal: Substantial Constitutional Questions At The New York Court Of Appeals, Meredith R. Miller

Scholarly Works

The jurisdiction of the New York Court of Appeals has long been shrouded in mystery. When the Court dismisses an appeal, it provides a boilerplate, one-sentence decretal entry, which gives the litigants little, if any, meaningful indication of the Court’s reasons for dismissal. In February 2010, however, the world received a rare glimpse into the Court’s jurisdiction when, in Kachalsky v. Cacace, 925 N.E.2d 80 (N.Y. 2010), Judge Robert Smith dissented from the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the appeal. Judge Smith voted to retain the appeal, arguing that the Court was using the requirement of “substantiality” to invoke discretion …

Beyond Formalist Sovereignty: Who Can Represent "We The People Of The United States" Today?, David Chang

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Greene V. Fisher: Will The Aedpa Trump Uniformity And Equity In Constitutional Decision Making, Sean O'Brien

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

American Academy Of Religion V. Napolitano, Margaret Laufman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Advice And Consent Vs. Silence And Dissent? The Contrasting Roles Of The Legislature In U.S. And U.K. Judicial Appointments, Mary Clark

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The Senate‘s role in judicial appointments has come under increasingly withering criticism for its uninformative and spectacle-like nature. At the same time, Britain has established two new judicial appointment processes - to accompany its new Supreme Court and existing lower courts - in which Parliament plays no role. This Article seeks to understand the reasons for the inclusion and exclusion of the legislature in the U.S. and U.K. judicial appointment processes adopted at the creation of their respective Supreme Courts.

The Article proceeds by highlighting the ideas and concerns motivating inclusion of the legislature in judicial appointments in the early …

Grabbing The Bullcoming By The Horns: How The Supreme Court Could Have Used Bullcoming V. New Mexico To Clarify Confrontation Clause Requirements For Csi-Type Reports, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the pilot episode of the hit television show CSI, Grissom says to Warrick: "Concentrate on what cannot lie. The evidence." Although Grissom is a beloved figure in U.S. popular culture, the U.S. is currently unwilling to accept that evidence never lies. In stark contrast to Grissom's statement, the common law has a long history of allowing criminal defendants to cross-examine and question witnesses providing evidence against them. The right to confront an accusatory witness is reflected in the historical legal documents of Great Britain, in Shakespearean writing, and even in the Bible. In the United States, the right to …

Teaching Values, Teaching Stereotypes: Sex Education And Indoctrination In Public Schools, Jennifer S. Hendricks, Dawn Marie Howerton

Publications

Many sex education curricula currently used in public schools indoctrinate students in gender stereotypes. As expressed in the title of one article: "If You Don't Aim to Please, Don't Dress to Tease," and Other Public School Sex Education Lessons Subsidized by You, the Federal Taxpayer, Jennifer L. Greenblatt, 14 Tex.J. on CL. & CR. 1 (2008). Other lessons pertain not only to responsibility for sexual activity but to lifelong approaches to family life and individual achievement. One lesson, for example, instructs students that, in marriage, men need sex from their wives and women need financial support from their husbands. …

Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, Mcdonald, And The Future Of Corporate Constitutional Rights, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court began its 2009 Term by addressing the constitutional rights of corporations. It ended the Term by addressing the incorporated rights of the Constitution. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a five-member majority of the Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend their own money on political advocacy. A corporation generally is no different than a natural person when it comes to the First Amendment - at least as it relates to political speech. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, a plurality of the Court held that the Second Amendment to the United …

Corporate Prerogative, Race, And Identity Under The Fourteenth Amendment, John A. Powell, Caitlin Watt

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Stevens And The Obligations Of Judgment, David Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

How to sum up a corpus of opinions that spans dozens of legal fields and four decades on the bench? How to make the most sense of a jurisprudence that has always been resistant to classification, by a jurist widely believed to have "no discernible judicial philosophy"? These questions have stirred Justice Stevens' former clerks in recent months. Since his retirement, many of us have been trying to capture in some meaningful if partial way what we found vital and praiseworthy in his approach to the law. There may be something paradoxical about the attempt to encapsulate in a formula …

Tragic Rights: The Rights Critique In The Age Of Obama, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article discusses the absence of the Rights Critique in the modern era, and its impact on the current formulation of rights in America. The three-pronged rights critique-–that U.S. constitutional rights politically insulate and valorize subordination, legitimate and thus perpetrate greater injustices than they address, and socially alienate us from community--was nearly ubiquitous in the 1980s. Since that time, it has largely disappeared, which in this author’s view is an unfortunate development.

The rights critique continues to be relevant today, because Obama-era rights continue to subordinate, legitimate, and alienate. However, these rights do more than just exaggerate the pathologies of …

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

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

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 …

"I'M Going To Dinner With Frank": Admissibility Of Nontestimonial Statements Of Intent To Prove The Actions Of Someone Other Than The Speaker - And The Role Of The Due Process Clause, Lynn Mclain

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Deactivating The Mousetrap: Entrapment By Estoppel As A Defense To Federal Felon-In-Possession Charges, Madeline Stavis

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule In Immigration Proceedings: Where It Was, Where It Is, Where It May Be Going, Irene Scharf

San Diego International Law Journal

The piece examines the treatment of the Fourth Amendment in immigration courts by surveying its jurisprudential history in those courts and then analyzes the judicial responses thereto. Disparities among circuit court rulings add to the confusion and unpredictability typical of Immigration Court decisions. Finally, the article discusses the difficulties raised by the divergent circuit court opinions and offers suggestions as to how we may resolve these difficulties in accordance with the Constitution's requirement of fair play.

“Bring[Ing] Our Enemies To Justice”: Terrorism And The Court, Anna Elazan

Legislation and Policy Brief

This article focuses on the venue of Mohammad’s trial and is broken into three sections. The first section reviews the historical use of military tribunals. This section begins by looking at the basis for Presidential authority to authorize the use of military commissions. This section then outlines the first use of military commissions since World War II. President George W. Bush’s authorization parallels the provisions in President Franklin Roosevelt’s authorization of the use of commissions in the 1940s. However, following authorization, the military commissions were subject to judicial challenges and significant revision by Congress. Finally, this section tracks recent developments …

Music As Speech: A First Amendment Category Unto Itself, David Munkittrick

Federal Communications Law Journal

Perhaps the most ubiquitous of art forms, music accompanies daily activities from shopping to jogging. Music permeates modem society, and there is little question it constitutes an integral mode of expression. Despite recognition of music's worth, however, there is little explanation of music in First Amendment jurisprudence. A rationale for First Amendment protection begins with analysis of the particular medium of speech. Through a foray in musical aesthetics and the history of musical censorship, this Note discusses the role of music in political, societal, and individual experience. Music has had an important role in political events, from the fall of …