Constitutional Law Commons^™

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

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ending A Peculiar Evil: The Constitution, Campaign Finance Reform, And The Need For Change In Focus After Citizens United V. Fec, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 773 (2011), Carson Griffis

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Between Liberalism And Theocracy, John D. Inazu

Faculty Scholarship

Our symposium conveners have focused us on “the relationship between liberalism and Christianity and their influence on American constitutionalism.” My objective is to complicate the relationship and reorient the influence. The focus of my inquiry is the liberty of conscience and its implications for the relationship between church and state. By approaching these issues through the lens of political theology (as distinct from either political or constitutional theory), hope to show that some of the most significant embodiments of conscience in the American colonies can neither be squared with an individualistic liberalism (as some on the left are prone to …

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.

Looking For A Few Good Philosopher Kings: Political Gerrymandering As A Question Of Institutional Competence, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The redistricting season is about to begin in full swing, and with it will come renewed calls for the federal courts, and particularly the U. S. Supreme Court, to aggressively review the work of the political branches. This is an intriguing puzzle. Since the early 1960’s, the federal courts have regulated questions of politics aggressively. They have done this even in the face of difficult questions of political representation. The courts have taken sides, to be sure, but these can only be described as acts of volition and will, not constitutional law. The leading case is Reynolds v. Sims. This …

Judicial Activism And The Interpretation Of The Voting Rights Act, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

From the moment the U.S. Supreme Court first confronted the difficult constitutional questions at the heart of the Voting Rights Act, its posture has been one of deference. This posture has continued to this day. In contrast, the Court has interpreted the language of the Act dynamically, often in total disregard to the text of the law or the intent of Congress. But as this Article explains, the Roberts Court appears poised to unsettle this longstanding narrative. The Act is in serious constitutional danger. One way to explain this move on the part of the Court is by invoking the …

Aryans, Gender, And American Politics, Robert Tsai

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This short essay discusses some of the ways in which the Aryan movement in America activates gendered beliefs for the goal of legal, political, and cultural transformation. In recent years, the community has moved from common law theories of white sovereignty to more robust forms of racial constitutionalism. The piece is drawn from "America's Forgotten Constitutions: Defiant Visions of Power and Community"

Can Congress Make You Buy Broccoli? And Why It Doesn’T Matter, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Constituciones Duraderas – Una Crítica Democrática (Enduring Constitutions – A Democratic Critique), Allan C. Hutchinson, Joel Colon-Rios

Articles & Book Chapters

This paper argues that formal constitutions and their institutional paraphernalia do more to inhibit and mitigate the emancipatory potential of democracy than to nurture and realize it.

Spanish Abstract: La relación entre democracia y constituciones es larga y turbulenta. La tendencia de los que se inclinan hacia el lado constitucionalista ha sido la de percibir a la democracia como una amenaza al orden político y a la preservación de ciertos valores considerados importantes, mientras que los que adoptan una postura democrática, más que cualquier otra cosa, tienden a tratar a las constituciones como un obstáculo a la participación popular. En …

Should We Have A Liberal Constitution?, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this brief essay, I attempt to accomplish two things. In Part I, I defend my proposed constitution against its putative liberal critics. In Part II, I argue that given contingent but highly plausible empirical assumptions, the differences between my constitution and a liberal constitution are less dramatic than one might suppose. There are often sound, nonliberal grounds for supporting institutional arrangements that appear liberal. It turns out, then, that liberalism is both less attractive (Part I) and less necessary (Part II) than its defenders suppose.

The Tea Party, The Constitution, And The Repeal Amendment, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Given that the Tea Party is a right-of-center movement, it does not take an empiricist to know that most Tea Partiers hold right-of-center views on a variety of issues. This does not mean, however, that the Tea Party movement is about immigration policy or social issues like abortion, any more than the gun-rights movement is about any other beliefs that may be held by a majority of gun-rights advocates. Instead, the Tea Party movement is about two big subjects: first, the undeniable recent surge in national government spending and debt, and second, what Tea Partiers perceive as a federal government …

Can Popular Constitutionalism Survive The Tea Party Movement?, Jared Goldstein

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Tea Party Movement And The Perils Of Popular Originalism, Jared A. Goldstein

Law Faculty Scholarship

The Tea Party movement presents something of a curiosity for constitutional theory because it combines originalist ideology and popular constitutionalist methods. Like minotaurs, werewolves, and other half-man, half-animal hybrids of myth and legend, the Tea Party's hybrid of originalism and popular constitutionalism serves to expose the limitations of both sources upon which it draws. Although originalists assert that interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning would take politics out of constitutional law, the Tea Party movement shows that originalism also provides a powerful political rhetoric. Moreover, while popular constitutionalists assert that democracy would be advanced by empowering the people …

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

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Hypothetical Postulate For The Polemic Of Extraordinary Rendition Vis-A-Vis The Paradigm Of Asymmetric Warfare, John C. Duncan, Jr.

Journal Publications

This article presents a controversial hypothetical approach to a side of the polemic regarding extraordinary rendition. War is not always controlled by rules, fairness, or ethics. The United States would prefer the foregoing if forced to go to war, but the enemy may not follow the same approach. As a result, the United States becomes hampered by unilaterally self-imposed rules and standards. Conceivably, we could fail to achieve our military objective because of the enemy's adherence to a very different approach and beliefs regarding warfare. Were we to have the privilege of fighting under relatively similar rules with the other …

Historical Roots Of Citizens United Vs. Fec: How Anarchists And Academics Accidentally Created Corporate Speech Rights, The General Essay, Zephyr Teachout

Faculty Scholarship

This paper looks at how the early rhetoric around the First Amendment enabled later development of corporate political speech rights.

Corporations, Corruption, And Complexity: Campaign Finance After Citizens United, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Few campaign finance cases have drawn more public attention than the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Court's invalidation of a sixty-year-old federal law – and comparable laws in two dozen states – banning corporations from engaging in independent spending in support of or opposition to candidates strongly affirms the right of corporations to engage in electoral advocacy. Critics – and most, albeit not all, of both the popular and academic commentary on the decision has been critical – have condemned the idea that corporations enjoy the same rights to spend on elections as natural persons. …

On Equality: The Anti-Interference Principle, Donald J. Kochan

University of Richmond Law Review

This essay seeks to summarize the general equality concept and proposes that equality requires that the government engage in anti-interference with individual choices and activities, so long as these things create no negative externalities for others. If we are serious about respecting equality, such interference actions should be avoided. Adopting an "anti-interference principle" is a necessary foundation for achieving the goal of true equality. The primary point is that equality matters. The purpose of this essay is not to survey the vast political, jurisprudential, and academic debate on equality, but instead, to take a broad look at the philosophical concept …

The Political Animal And The Ethics Of Constitutional Commitment, Josh Chafetz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In his article Parchment and Politics: The Positive Puzzle of Constitutional Commitment, Professor Daryl J. Levinson identifies a variety of public choice mechanisms that lead politically empowered groups to accept constitutional limitations on their political power. In this response, Professor Josh Chafetz argues that Levinson overlooks another set of mechanisms, ones which work not at the level of material interests but rather at the level of political morality. Focusing on an Aristotelian account of political morality—an account that was influential among the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and that remains influential today — Chafetz suggests that at least some …

Internet Access Rights: A Brief History And Intellectual Origins, Jonathon Penney

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

If there is anything we have learned from recent protest movements around the world, and the heavy-handed government efforts to block, censor, suspend, and manipulate Internet connectivity, it is that access to the Internet, and its content, is anything but certain, especially when governments feel threatened. Despite these hard truths, the notion that people have a "right" to Internet access gained high-profile international recognition last year. In a report to the United Nations General Assembly in early 2011, Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, held that Internet access should be recognized as a "human right". …

Book Review, Derek Kiernan-Johnson

Publications

No abstract provided.

Misunderstanding Congress: Statutory Interpretation, The Supermajoritarian Difficulty, And The Separation Of Powers, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Every lawyer's theory of statutory interpretation carries with it an idea of Congress, and every idea of Congress, in turn, carries with it an idea of the separation of powers. In this article, the author critiques three dominant academic theories of statutory interpretation--textualism, purposivism, and game theory--for their assumptions about Congress and the separation of powers. She argues that each academic theory fails to account for Congress's dominant institutional features: "the electoral connection," the "supermajoritarian difficulty," and the "principle of structure-induced ambiguity." This critique yields surprising conclusions, rejecting both standard liberal and conservative views on statutory interpretation.

"Plain" meaning, it …

On Dejudicializing American Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court dominates American campaign finance law. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission dramatically illustrates this basic truth, but Citizens United is nothing new. The Court has been the preeminent force in shaping and constraining our campaign finance laws since Buckley v. Valeo, and the Court's role as arbiter of what regulations may or may not be enforced only continues to grow. The President of the United States can wag his finger at the Court during the State of the Union Address and denounce its Citizens United ruling to the Justices' faces on national television, but even he …

Four Constitutional Limits That The Minimum Coverage Provision Respects, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Opponents of the minimum coverage provision in the Affordable Care Act charge that if Congress can require most people to obtain health insurance or pay a certain amount of money, then Congress can impose whatever mandates it wishes - or, at least, whatever purchase mandates it wishes. This Essay refutes that claim by identifying four limits on the Commerce Clause that the minimum coverage provision honors. Congress may not use its commerce power: (1) to regulate noneconomic subject matter; (2) to impose a regulation that violates constitutional rights, including the right to bodily integrity; (3) to regulate at all, including …

What Happened In Iowa?, David Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

Reply to Nicole Mansker & Neal Devins, Do Judicial Elections Facilitate Popular Constitutionalism; Can They?, 111 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 27 (2011).

November 2, 2010 is the latest milestone in the evolution of state judicial elections from sleepy, sterile affairs into meaningful political contests. Following an aggressive ouster campaign, voters in Iowa removed three supreme court justices, including the chief justice, who had joined an opinion finding a right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution. Supporters of the campaign rallied around the mantra, “It’s we the people, not we the courts.” Voter turnout surged to unprecedented levels; the national …

The Political Branches And The Law Of Nations, Bradford R. Clark, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court went out of its way to follow background rules of the law of nations, particularly the law of state-state relations. As we have recently argued, the Court followed the law of nations because adherence to such law preserved the constitutional prerogatives of the political branches to conduct foreign relations and decide momentous questions of war and peace. Although we focused primarily on the extent to which the Constitution obligated courts to follow the law of nations in the early republic, the explanation we offered rested on an important, …

Impeachment And Assassination, Josh Chafetz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 1998, the conservative provocateur Ann Coulter made waves when she wrote that President Clinton should be either impeached or assassinated. Coulter was roundly - and rightly - condemned for suggesting that the murder of the President might be justified, but her conceptual linking of presidential impeachment and assassination was not entirely unfounded. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin had made the same linkage over two hundred years earlier, when he noted at the Constitutional Convention that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal - impeachment - would be preferable. …

Collective Action Federalism: A General Theory Of Article I, Section 8, Robert D. Cooter, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The Framers of the United States Constitution wrote Article I, Section 8 in order to address some daunting collective action problems facing the young nation. They especially wanted to protect the states from military warfare by foreigners and from commercial warfare against one another. The states acted individually when they needed to act collectively, and Congress lacked power under the Articles of Confederation to address these problems. Section 8 thus authorized Congress to promote the “general Welfare” of the United States by tackling many collective action problems that the states could not solve on their own.

Subsequent interpretations of Section …

Judging Myopia In Hindsight: Bivens Actions, National Security Decisions, And The Rule Of Law, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

Liability in national security matters hinges on curbing both official myopia and hindsight bias. The Framers knew that officials could be short-sighted, prioritizing expedience over abiding values. Judicial review emerged as an antidote to myopia of this kind. However, the Framers recognized that ubiquitous second-guessing of government decisions would also breed instability. Balancing these conflicting impulses has produced judicial oscillation between intervention and deference. Recent decisions on Bivens claims in the war on terror have defined extremes of deference or intervention. Cases like Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Arar v. Ashcroft display a categorical deference that rewards officials' myopia. On the …