Constitutional Law Commons^™

Full Faith And Credit In The Early Congress, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

After more than 200 years, the Full Faith and Credit Clause remains poorly understood. The Clause first issues a self-executing command (that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given"), and then empowers Congress to prescribe the manner of proof and the "Effect" of state records in other states. But if states must accord each other full faith and credit-and if nothing could be more than full-then what "Effect" could Congress give state records that they wouldn't have already? And conversely, how could Congress in any way reduce or alter the faith and credit that is due?

This Article seeks to …

Heller’S Problematic Second Amendment Categoricalism, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cruel And Unequal Punishment, Nita A. Farahany

Faculty Scholarship

This article argues Atkins and its progeny of categorical exemptions to the death penalty create and new and as of yet undiscovered interaction between the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Supreme Court, the legal academy and commentators have failed to consider the relationship between the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and the Equal Protection Clause that the Court's new Eighth Amendment jurisprudence demands. This article puts forth a new synthesis of these two clauses, and demonstrates how the Court's new Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has remarkable Fourteenth Amendment implications. To see the point in …

The Unbearable Lightness Of Marriage In The Abortion Decisions Of The Supreme Court: Altered States In Constitutional Law, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Property And Speech In ‘Summum’, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Religion In The Workplace: A Report On The Layers Of Relevant Law In The United States, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This article reports on the thick layers of law applicable to claims of religious exception to public and private employment workplaces in the United States. It reviews the Supreme Court's First and Fourteenth Amendment salient holdings, distinguishing public sector (government) workplaces, and the extent to which legislative bodies may and may not oblige private employers to "accommodate" religiously-asserted requirements. It also provides exhaustive footnote analyses of all major federal statutes (plus some representative state and local law variations) pertinent to the topic. Its principal conclusions are these: In the currently prevailing view of the U.S. Supreme Court, neither public nor …

Unshackling Speech (Book Review), David L. Lange

Faculty Scholarship

Reviewing, Brian C. Anderson and Adam D. Thierer, A Manifesto for Media Freedom (2008))

Guns As Smut: Defending The Home-Bound Second Amendment, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal, individual right to keep and bear arms. But the Court left lower courts and legislatures adrift on the fundamental question of scope. While the Court stated in dicta that some regulation may survive constitutional scrutiny, it left the precise contours of the right, and even the method by which to determine those contours, for 'future evaluation."

This Article offers a provocative proposal for tackling the issue of Second Amendment scope, one tucked in many dresser drawers across the nation: Treat the Second Amendment …

Marriage As A Message: Same-Sex Couples And The Rhetoric Of Accidental Procreation, Kerry Abrams, Peter Brooks

Faculty Scholarship

In his dissent in the 2003 case Goodridge v. Department of Health, Justice Robert Cordy of the Massachusetts Supreme Court introduced a novel argument in support of state bans on same-sex marriage: that marriage is an institution designed to create a safe social and legal space for accidental heterosexual reproduction, a space that is not necessary for same-sex couples who, by definition, cannot accidentally reproduce. Since 2003, every state appellate court considering a same-sex marriage case has adopted Justice Cordy's dissent until the recent California Supreme Court decision In Re Marriage Cases. In case after case, courts have held that …

Pregnancy And Sex-Role Stereotyping: From ‘Struck’ To ‘Carhart’, Neil S. Siegel, Reva B. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The guarantee of equal protection of the laws extends to women as well as men. Yet for the first 100 years of the Fourteenth Amendment’s life, the Supreme Court never found a law unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminated on the basis of sex. Between 1970 and 1980, social movement advocacy and brilliant litigation by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others changed our constitutional law. Over the course of the decade, the Court extended the anti-stereotyping principle from discrimination on the basis of race to discrimination on the basis of sex. But fidelity to the principle had its limits. In …

Categoricalism And Balancing In First And Second Amendment Analysis, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

The least discussed element of District of Columbia v. Heller might ultimately be the most important: the battle between the majority and dissent over the use of categoricalism and balancing in the construction of constitutional doctrine. In Heller, Justice Scalia’s categoricalism essentially prevailed over Justice Breyer’s balancing approach. But as the opinion itself demonstrates, Second Amendment categoricalism raises extremely difficult and still-unanswered questions about how to draw and justify the lines between protected and unprotected “Arms,” people, and arms-bearing purposes. At least until balancing tests appear in Second Amendment doctrine—as they almost inevitably will—the future of the Amendment will depend …

Treaties As "Part Of Our Law", Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Arizona V. Johnson: Determining When A Terry Stop Becomes Consensual, Ryan Thompson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Pacific Bell V. Linkline: Price Squeezing And The Limits Of Judicial Administrability, Sandeep Vaheesan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Fitzgerald V. Barnstable School Committee: Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights, Sarah Branstetter

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Davis V. Fec: The First Amendment Rights Of A Wealthy Candidate, Jeremy Earl

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Panetti V. Quarterman: Raising The Bar Against Executing The Incompetent, D. G. Maxted

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Explaining Change And Rethinking Dirty Words: Fcc V. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Tobias Coleman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Pleasant Grove City V. Summum: Identifying Government Speech & Classifying Speech Forums, Aaron Harmon

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Supreme Court must decide whether a privately-donated Ten Commandments monument currently on display in a city park is the private speech of the donor or the government speech of Pleasant Grove City. Summum, a religious organization, sued Pleasant Grove City in federal court claiming that because the city had displayed in a city park a donated Ten Commandments monument, the First Amendment compelled the city to also accept and display Summum's proposed "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument. If the Court decides it is the private speech of the donor, it will have to …

Ksr V. Teleflex: How “Obviousness” Has Changed, Daniel Becker

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court examined the Federal Circuit's obviousness jurisprudence for patents. Both prior to and in this case, the Federal Circuit rigidly applied its judicially created "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM) test to determine whether the prior art would direct an inventor of ordinary skill in the art to combine references or elements in references in the same way as the patentee did. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision of the Federal Circuit, and held that by applying the TSM test in such a strict manner, the Federal Circuit had "analyzed the issue in a …

Why The Incompatibility Clause Applies To The Office Of The President, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Professor Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash responds to Mr. Seth Barret Tillman's Article and defends the traditional interpretation of the Incompatibility Clause, under which a President is prohibited from simultaneously serving as a congressional representative. The ramifications that would result if a President could also hold a position in the Senate or the House of Representatives, Professor Prakash argues, are too problematic for Mr. Tillman's reading to replace the traditional understanding of the Incompatibility Clause. Therefore, the next President, whether Senator McCain or Senator Obama, would need to resign from the Senate before assuming the Executive Office.

Why Our Next President May Keep His Or Her Senate Seat: A Conjecture On The Constitution’S Incompatibility Clause, Seth Barrett Tillman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In this Article, Mr. Seth Barrett Tillman challenges the traditional interpretation of the Incompatibility Clause and argues that the President may serve both as the Chief Executive and as a member of Congress. Mr. Tillman utilizes the text, history, and structure of the Constitution to support his position. He ultimately concludes that whoever serves as the next President -- Senator Obama or Senator McCain -- need not resign from the Senate before assuming the Executive Office.

California Climate Change And The Constitution, Christopher H. Schroeder, Neil S. Siegel, Erwin Chemerinsky, Brigham Daniels, Brettny Hardy, Tim Profeta

Faculty Scholarship

While the United States has of yet not passed meaningful legislation that addresses climate change, several U.S. states are taking steps to reduce the carbon footprints of their industries and citizens. As it has in the past, California is leading the way. But are its actions legal?

Cultural Values And Government, Walter E. Dellinger Iii

Faculty Scholarship

Mr. Dellinger Mr. Dellinger originally delivered these remarks for the panel entitled The Role of Government in Defining Our Culture, at the Federalist Society’s 2006 National Lawyers Convention, on Saturday, November 18, 2006, in Washington, D.C. commenting on the Ninth Circuit decision Finley v. National Endowment for the Arts. The case involved the constitutionality of the Helms Amendment which required that the National Endowment for the Arts take decency into account in choosing who should be awarded artistic grants.

Preemption And Federal Common Law, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Amending The Exceptions Clause, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Jurisdiction stripping is the new constitutional amendment, and the Exceptions Clause is the new Article V. But despite legal academia’s long-running obsessions with the meaning of constitutional amendment and the limits (if any) on Congress’s power to control federal jurisdiction, we still lack even a basic understanding of how these two forms of constitutional politicking interact. As legislators increasingly propose and pass jurisdiction-stripping legislation and pursue politically charged constitutional amendments, these constitutional processes have begun to step off of the pages of law reviews and into the halls of Congress. The looming collision between them makes it all the more …

Executive Preemption, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Preemption of state regulatory authority by national law is the central federalism issue of our time. Most analysis of this issue has focused on the preemptive effects of federal statutes. But as Justice White observed in INS v. Chadha,“[f]or some time, the sheer amount of law . . . made by the [administrative] agencies has far outnumbered the lawmaking engaged in by Congress through the traditional process.” Whether one views this development as a “bloodless constitutional revolution” or as a necessary “renovation” of the constitutional structure in response to the complexity of modern society, the advent of the administrative state …

Self-Execution And Treaty Duality, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States, treaties made by the United States are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." At least since the Supreme Court's 1829 decision in Foster v. Neilson, however, it has been understood that treaty provisions are enforceable in U.S. courts only if they are "self-executing." The legitimacy and implications of this self-execution requirement have generated substantial controversy and uncertainty among both courts and commentators. This Article attempts to clear up some of the conceptual confusion relating to the self-execution doctrine and, …

State Domas, Neutral Principles, And The Möbius Of State Action, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

This essay uses the Mobius strip as a mathematical metaphor for how state "defense of marriage amendments" (DOMAs) can twist the Shelley v. Kraemer contribution to state action doctrine. It argues that Shelley's core insight -- that judicial enforcement of private agreements can constitute state action and must meet federal Fourteenth Amendment commands -- can be used by state judiciaries to hold that state judicial enforcement of private agreements between same sex-couples is a species of state action forbidden by state DOMA. As explored in this essay, the potential doctrinal contortion of Shelley by state DOMAs is at once a …

Quintessential Elements Of Meaningful Constitutions In Post-Conflict States, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This examination compares several successful constitutions formulated to govern countries just formed from the conclusion of armed conflicts (including the U.S.). Some of the most important elements gleaned from these successful constitutions include an independent court before which one may appeal to the new constitution because such a constitution adequately secures the integrity of the court itself.