Constitutional Law Commons^™

In The Wake Of Crosby V. National Foreign Trade Council: The Impact Upon Selective Purchasing Legislation Throughout The United States, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 827 (2001), Ako Miyaki-Murphy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedural Reforms In Capital Cases Applied To Perjury, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 453 (2001), Steven Clark

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Righting Illinois' Wrongs: Suggestions For Reform And A Call For Abolition, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 469 (2001), Sharone Levy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bad Medicine: Erisa's Equitable Remedies And The Preemption Of Fundamental Legal Rights, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 583 (2001), Marilyn Lablaiks

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Something Is Rotten In The Interrogation Room: Let's Try Video Oversight, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 537 (2001), Wayne T. Westling

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pause At The Rubicon, John Marshall And Emancipation: Reparations In The Early National Period?, 35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 75 (2001), Frances Howell Rudko

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Legitimacy Of The Civil Provisions Of The Federal Wiretap Act - A Suggestion To The Supreme Court In The Case Of Bartnicki V. Vopper, Jess Gamiere

Cleveland State Law Review

Title III of the Federal Wiretap Act, as amended, remains the "primary law guarding the privacy of personal communication [among private citizens] in the United States." This piece of legislation will serve as the focal point of this Note. This Note will first discuss the history and context of the statute under which two cases have arisen. It will then survey various Supreme Court cases addressing the tension between the First Amendment and the right to privacy so as to provide the reader with a better understanding of the conflict between these two constitutional rights. Then it will outline and …

Punishing Thought: A Narrative Deconstructing The Interpretive Dance Of Hate Crime Legislation, 35 J. Marshall L. Rev. 123 (2001), Anne B. Ryan

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Storm Arrives: The First Amendment Cases In The Supreme Court's 1999-2000 Term, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Dissing Congress , Ruth Colker, James J. Brudney

Faculty Scholarship

This article adopts a novel separation of powers framework to analyze the Rehnquist Court's recent decisions under the Commerce Clause and Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. We demonstrate in historical terms how the Court's methods for assessing the constitutional adequacy of federal laws have changed dramatically since the mid-1990s, and we argue that these new methods are undermining the proper role of Congress and producing a significant shift in the balance of power between the Branches. We identify two distinct methodologies employed by the Rehnquist Court that have resulted in growing disrespect for Congress - the "crystal ball" and …

Alan Isaacman And The First Amendment: A Candid Interview With Larry Flynt's Attorney, Clay Calvert, Robert D. Richards

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Calm After The Storm: First Amendment Cases In The Supreme Court's 2000-2001 Term, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar

Articles

Once the Court granted [certiorari in Dickerson] court-watchers knew the hour had come. At long last the Court would have to either repudiate Miranda, repudiate the prophylactic-rule cases [the cases viewing Miranda's requirements as not rights protected by the Constitution, but merely "prophylactic rules"] or offer some ingenious reconciliation of the two lines of precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, doesn't "have to" do anything, as the decision in Dickerson once again reminds us.

How Democratic Are Initiatives?, Richard B. Collins

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Second Amendment: Structure, History, And Constitutional Change, David Yassky

Michigan Law Review

A fierce debate about the Second Amendment has been percolating in academia for two decades, and has now bubbled through to the courts. The question at the heart of this debate is whether the Amendment restricts the government's ability to regulate the private possession of firearms. Since at least 1939 - when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Miller, its only decision squarely addressing the scope of the right to "keep and bear Arms" - the answer to that question has been an unqualified "no." Courts have brushed aside Second Amendment challenges to gun control legislation, reading the Amendment …

Proactive Legislation And The First Amendment, Stuart Minor Benjamin

Michigan Law Review

It is a commonplace that the world is changing rapidly, with whole sectors of the economy being transformed. New forms of communication, like the World Wide Web, e-mail, and satellite television, have risen from obscurity to ubiquity in less than a decade. The speed of these changes has led some to express concern about the ability of governments to respond. The fear is that governments cannot keep up with developments as they occur and thus get hopelessly behind. The solution, according to some, is for the government to act proactively - before a harm has arisen, so that the government …

Timing And Delegation: A Reply, Jonathan R. Siegel

Vanderbilt Law Review

For two authors who come to such different conclusions, Professor Manning and I agree on a good deal. We agree that courts, in considering whether to consult legislative history in the course of statutory construction, must take heed of the special constitutional rule against congressional self-aggrandizement.' Thus, we agree that the Constitution forbids courts to give authoritative weight to post-enactment legislative history, because the effect of such a judicial practice is to permit Congress to delegate a very important power, the power to elaborate the meaning of statutes, to its committees or Members. We also agree, however, that Congress may, …

Rules And Judicial Review, Emily Sherwin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Judicial review of statutes on constitutional grounds is affected by a cluster of doctrinal practices that are generally accepted, but not very well explained, by the courts and not entirely consistent with each other. Courts usually judge statutes “as applied” rather than as written; they favor “severance” of valid applications of statutes from invalid or possibly invalid applications when possible; and they interpret statutes in ways that avoid constitutional difficulty. These overlapping practices presumably are intended to preserve legislation, and hence are associated with a modest conception of the role of courts in government. Yet they are not always modest …

Should State Corporate Law Define Successor Liability - The Demise Of Cercla's Federal Common Law, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

During the 1980s and early 1990s, a series of decisions broadly interpreting the liability provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA) appeared destined to transform corporate law practice. CERCIA does not directly address successor liability, but the statute's complex and contradictory legislative history arguably implies that Congress wanted federal courts to apply broad liability principles to achieve the statute's fundamental remedial goal of making polluters and their successors pay for cleaning up hazardous substances.

Notably, a number of courts rejected state corporate law principles that usually limit the liability of successor corporations and instead …

The Calm Before The Storm: First Amendment Cases In The 1998-99 Term, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Every Man Has A Right To Decide His Own Destiny: The Development Of Native Hawaiian Self-Determination As Compared To Self-Determination Of Native Alaskans And The People Of Puerto Rico, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 639 (2000), Michael Carroll

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall, Mcculloch V. Maryland, And The Southern States' Rights Tradition, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 875 (2000), R. Kent Newmyer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

John Marshall In Spencer Roane's Virginia: The Southern Constitutional Opposition To The Marshall Court, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1131 (2000), F. Thornton Miller

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silencing Speech In The Workplace: Re-Examining The Use Of Specific Speech Injunctive Relief For Title Vii Hostile Environment Work Claims, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 321 (2000), Sonali Das

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Federalism Decisions, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Religious Liberty Protection Act: The Validity Of Using Congress' Commerce And Spending Powers To Protect Religion, Jennifer Dorton

Cleveland State Law Review

Although the Religious Liberty Protection Act appears, on its face, to be simple, there are many constitutional issues which call into question the validity of the proposed bill. This note will focus on the constitutional problems of using Congress' commerce and spending powers to protect religion. It will examine the problem of attaching religious conditions to the States' receipt of federal funds, and the potential problem that may result from using the spending power to protect religious exercise. The note then turns to the commerce clause justification for the RLPA. It will point out the major flaw in using the …

Congress' Arrogance, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Does Dickerson v. U.S., reaffirming Miranda and striking down §3501 (the federal statute purporting to "overrule" Miranda), demonstrate judicial arrogance? Or does the legislative history of §3501 demonstrate the arrogance of Congress? Shortly after Dickerson v. U.S. reaffirmed Miranda and invalidated §3501, a number of Supreme Court watchers criticized the Court for its "judicial arrogance" in peremptorily rejecting Congress' test for the admissibility of confessions. The test, pointed out the critics, had been adopted by extensive hearings and debate about Miranda's adverse impact on law enforcement. The Dickerson Court did not discuss the legislative history of §3501 at all. However, …

Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker

Articles

The Supreme Court has ushered in the new millennium with a renewed emphasis on federalism-based limits to Congress's regulatory authority in general, and Congress's Section 5 power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment in particular. In a recent string of cases, the Court has refined and narrowed Section 5's enforcement power in two significant ways.1 First, the Court made clear that Congress lacks the authority to interpret the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions themselves, and may only "enforce" the judiciary's definition of Fourteenth Amendment violations. 2 Second, the Court embraced a relatively stringent requirement concerning the relationship between means …

The Constitutionality Of The Driver’S Privacy Protection Act: A Fork In The Information Access Road, Angela R. Karras

Federal Communications Law Journal

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, instituted in 1997, regulates the disclosure of personal information in motor vehicle records. New controversy surrounds it today as the U.S. Supreme Court evaluates the arguments presented in November 1999 regarding its constitutionality. A split among circuit courts, coupled with the tremendous growth in technology and subsequent new in-roads for information access, draw increased attention toward the Act. The concern for information access in light of the Act, however, reaches beyond the courts' elucidated concerns about dual sovereignty and the public's right to privacy. This Note argues that there is a forgotten argument: the Act's …

Strike Two: An Analysis Of The Child Online Protection Act’S Constitutional Failures, Heather L. Miller

Federal Communications Law Journal

Congress's first attempt to regulate minors' access to sexually explicit material via the Internet failed. Congress responded with the Child Online Protection Act, which, despite its narrower scope, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. This Notes delves into the constitutionality of Congress's second attempt by addressing the difficulty of applying the vague "harmful to minors" definition to the Internet medium and the economic and technological unavailability of the Act's affirmative defenses. This Note concludes with an explanation as to why legislation is an ineffective mechanism to address the problem of minors' access to online pornography.