Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Choice Between Madison And Fdr, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This exchange is about three clauses that have often been used by the courts since the New Deal to expand federal power: the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Taxation Clause, from which the spending power has (at least until today) been construed. This Essay addresses the originalist interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Golden Mean Between Kurt & Dan: A Moderate Reading Of The Ninth Amendment, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In these remarks given at the Drake Constitutional Law Center Symposium, Professor Randy Barnett addresses his disagreement with Dan Farber's view of the Ninth Amendment in his new book and with Kurt Lash's view of the Ninth Amendment in his recent articles, and he asks why the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have been overlooked.

The author explains that his view is closer to Farber's; however, he asserts that the Ninth Amendment protects all fundamental liberties—not just some. He asserts that Lash incorrectly views the Ninth Amendment as protecting state majoritarianism rather than …

Terror Financing, Guilt By Association And The Paradigm Of Prevention In The ‘War On Terror’, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

"Material support" has become the watchword of the post-9/11 era. Material support to groups that have been designated as "terrorist" has been the U.S. government's favorite charge in post-9/11 "terrorism" prosecutions. Under immigration law, material support is a basis for deportation and exclusion - even where individuals have been coerced into providing support by the terrorist group itself. And under the Military Commissions Act, it is now a "war crime."

This essay argues that the criminalization of "material support" to designated "terrorist organizations" is guilt by association in twenty-first-century garb, and presents all of the same problems that criminalizing membership …

On The Commander-In-Chief Power, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Since September 11, the Bush administration has asserted broad, exclusive presidential war powers under the Commander in Chief Clause. However, the minimalist language of the Clause never specifies what powers a commander in chief possesses. This paper argues, based on military history, original understanding, and the contemporary theory of civilian-military relations, that the commander-in-chief power is narrow rather than broad. In ancient and feudal societies, like contemporary military dictatorships, civilian and military dominion are fused to consolidate power in the hands of a single leader – a warrior-king or fighting executive, whose military prowess validates the claim to civilian rule. …

Kurt Lash's Majoritarian Difficulty: A Response To A Textual-Historical Theory Of The Ninth Amendment, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Kurt Lash believes that, in addition to individual natural rights, the Ninth Amendment protects collective or majoritarian rights as well. In this essay the author explains why Lash’s majoritarian vision is contrary to the antimajoritarianism of the man who devised the Ninth Amendment, James Madison, and those who wrote the Constitution. Not coincidentally, it is contrary to the individualism of the other amendments constituting the Bill of Rights, and the public meaning of the Ninth Amendment as it was received during its ratification. It is also contrary to the individualist conception of popular sovereignty adopted in the text of the …

The Man Behind The Torture, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No abstract provided.

Taking Text Too Seriously: Modern Textualism, Original Meaning, And The Case Of Amar's Bill Of Rights, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Championed on the Supreme Court by Justices Scalia and Thomas and championed in academia most prominently by Professor Akhil Amar, textualism has in the past twenty years emerged as a leading school of constitutional interpretation. Textualists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original public meaning and, in seeking that meaning, they closely parse the Constitution's words and grammar and the placement of clauses in the document. They have assumed that this close parsing recaptures original meaning, but, perhaps because it seems obviously correct, that assumption has neither been defended nor challenged. This article uses Professor …

Rendition To Torture: The Case Of Maher Arar: Hearing Before The H. Comm. On Foreign Affairs,, 110th Cong., Oct. 18, 2007 (Statement Of David D. Cole, Geo. U. L. Center), David Cole

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Regulatory Preemption: Are Federal Agencies Usurping Congressional And State Authority?: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary,, 110th Cong., Sept. 12, 2007 (Statement Of Viet D. Dinh, Geo. U. L. Center), Viet D. Dinh

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Regulatory Preemption: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 110th Cong., Sept. 12, 2007 (Statement Of David C. Vladeck, Geo. U. L. Center), David C. Vladeck

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Salim Hamdan As Amicus Curiae, Boumediene V. Bush & Al Odah V. United States, Nos. 06-1195 & 06-1196 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2007), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Legal Historians As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Boumediene V. Bush, Nos. 06-1195, 06-1196 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2007), James Oldham

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Equal Representation In Congress: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs, 110th Cong., May 15, 2007 (Statement Of Viet D. Dinh, Geo. U. L. Center), Viet D. Dinh

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

S. 310, The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act Of 2007: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On Indian Affairs, 110th Cong., May 3, 2007 (Statement Of Professor Viet D. Dinh, Geo. U. L. Center), Viet D. Dinh

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

If They Can Raze It, Why Can't I? A Constitutional Analysis Of Statutory And Judicial Religious Exemptions To Historic Preservation Ordinances, Erin Guiffre

Georgetown Law Historic Preservation Papers Series

In 1996, America almost lost a great piece of its history. The Cathedral of Saint Vibiana, located in Los Angeles, was in danger of being destroyed. The "Baroque-inspired Italianate structure" was completed in 1876 by architect Ezra F. Kysor. The cathedral is one of only a few structures from Los Angeles' early history remaining. As an important part of history and a beautiful piece of architecture, the cathedral was listed on California's register of historic places. In 1994, an earthquake damaged part of the building. After an inspection by the building and safety department in 1996, the only portion of …

The Defense Of Torture, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No abstract provided.

D.C. House Voting Rights Act Of 2007: Hearing Before The H. Comm. On The Judiciary, 110th Cong., Mar. 14, 2007 (Statement Of Professor Viet D. Dinh, Geo. U. L. Center), Viet D. Dinh

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Why Preemption Proponents Are Wrong, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The basic idea of federal preemption is easily stated: It is a constitutionally mandated principle that demands that federal law trumps state law when the two conflict or in the rare instances when a federal law is so comprehensive that there’s no role left for state law to fill. But in practice, courts have often had difficulty applying the principle.

For plaintiff lawyers, preemption is an ever-present worry. When your client has been injured by a defective car, truck, medical device, boat, tobacco product, pesticide, or mislabeled drug, or has been victimized by a bank or other lending institution, the …

Amending Executive Order 12866: Good Governance Or Regulatory Usurpation? Part I And Part Ii: Hearing Before The H. Comm. On Science And Technology, 110th Cong., Feb. 13, 2007 (Statement Of Professor David C. Vladeck, Geo. U. L. Center), David C. Vladeck

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Presidential Signing Statements Under The Bush Administration: A Threat To Checks And Balances And The Rule Of Law?: Hearing Before The H. Comm. On The Judiciary, 110th Cong., Jan. 31, 2007 (Statement Of Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

The People Or The State?: Chisholm V. Georgia And Popular Sovereignty, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Lectures and Appearances

Chisholm v. Georgia was the first great constitutional case decided by the Supreme Court. In Chisholm, the Court addressed the fundamental question: Who is Sovereign? The People or the State? It adopted an individual concept of popular sovereignty rather than the modern view that limits popular sovereignty to collective or democratic self-government. It denied that the State of Georgia was a sovereign entitled, like the King of England, to assert immunity from a lawsuit brought by a private citizen. Despite all this, Chisholm is not among the canon of cases that all law students are taught. Why not? In this …

What’S International Law Got To Do With It? Transnational Law And The Intelligence Mission, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The United States faces an immediate and continuous threat of terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. The intelligence function and national security law, including international law--or more accurately transnational law--are central to addressing this threat. Indeed, international law is more relevant today in addressing this threat than it was before September 11. Part II of this article describes a continuum of contemporary threats to U.S. national security, with a focus on nonstate terrorism. Part III addresses the role of intelligence and national security law, and in particular law addressed to process, in combating these threats. Part …

Originalism And The Natural Born Citizen Clause, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The enigmatic phrase "natural born citizen" poses a series of problems for contemporary originalism. New originalists, like Justice Scalia, focus on the public meaning of the constitutional text, but the notion of a "natural born citizen" was likely a term of art, derived from the idea of a "natural born subject" in English law--a category that most likely did not extend to persons, like John McCain, who were born outside sovereign territory. But the constitution speaks of "citizens" and not "subjects," introducing uncertainties and ambiguities that might (or might not) make McCain eligible for the presidency.

What was the original …

Due Process Land Use Claims After Lingle, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. that challenges to the validity of land use regulations for failing to advance governmental interests must be brought under the Due Process Clause, rather than the Takings Clause, and must be evaluated under a deferential standard. This Article analyzes and evaluates the probable course of such judicial review, and concludes that federal courts will resist due process review of land use decisions for good reasons but not always with an adequate doctrinal explanation. However, state courts can use due process review to provide state level supervision of local land use …

National Security And Environmental Laws: A Clear And Present Danger?, Hope M. Babcock

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Without question, life in the United States has changed significantly since September 11, 2001. The attacks launched from within the United States in broad daylight against non-military targets and innocent civilians, followed by the intentional dispersal of the biological agent anthrax, ushered in an era of uncertainty and fear in this country unlike any in recent memory. The visible manifestations of this fear are still with us--concrete barriers and the closing of public spaces around public buildings, heightened security at airports and train stations subjecting people to invasive searches of their persons and belongings, the sudden, seemingly random appearance of …

Original Understanding And The Whether, Why, And How Of Judicial Review, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For more than one hundred years, legal scholars have endlessly and heatedly debated whether judicial review of federal legislation was part of the original understanding of the Constitution. The stakes of the debate are high. If judicial review was part of the original understanding, then there is a strong argument that the practice is grounded in the majority’s will, just as the Founders’ Constitution is. But if it is not—if, as Alexander Bickel and others have claimed, judicial review was a sleight-of-hand creation of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison—then judicial review is either counter-majoritarian or else must …

The Federal “Claim” In The District Courts: Osborn, Verlinden, And Protective Jurisdiction, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the title of his influential article, “The Federal ‘Question’ in the District Courts,” Professor Paul Mishkin reminded us that the phrase “federal question” is a misnomer as a description of the “arising under” jurisdiction of the district courts. The purpose of the “arising under” jurisdiction of the district courts is not solely, or even primarily, to resolve disputed questions of federal law, but to provide a hospitable forum for the vindication of federal rights. Such rights can be frustrated by an inhospitable forum not just through the misinterpretation of federal law, but through misinterpretation of state law or through …

It Depends On What The Meaning Of "False" Is: Falsity And Misleadingness In Commercial Speech Doctrine, Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

While scholarship regarding the Supreme Court's noncommercial speech doctrine has often focused on the level of protection for truthful, non-misleading commercial speech, scholars have paid little attention to the exclusion of false or misleading commercial speech from all First Amendment protection. Examining the underpinnings of the false and misleading speech exclusion illuminates the practical difficulties that abolishing the commercial speech doctrine would pose. Through a series of fact patterns in trademark and false advertising cases, this piece demonstrates that defining what is false or misleading is often debatable. If commercial speech were given First Amendment protection, consumer protection and First …

Process Theory, Majoritarianism, And The Original Understanding, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Radicals in Robes, Cass Sunstein posits that there are four primary approaches to constitutional interpretation: perfectionism, majoritarianism, minimalism, and fundamentalism.' The purpose of his eloquent and compelling book is twofold: Sunstein argues for minimalism, an approach that he contends makes most sense for America today; and with even greater force, Sunstein argues against fundamentalism, which he finds "wrong, dangerous, radical, and occasionally hypocritical."' The "Radicals in Robes" who are the targets of Sunstein's book are judges who embrace fundamentalism, which, in his view, embodies "the views of the extreme wing of [the] Republican Party."'

In Securing Constitutional Democracy: The …

Underlying Principles, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In his forthcoming article, Original Meaning and Abortion, Jack Balkin makes the startling disclosure that he is now an originalist. "[C]onstitutional interpretation," he writes, "requires fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution and to the principles that underlie the text. The task of interpretation is to look to original meaning and underlying principle and decide how best to apply them in current circumstances. I call this the method of text and principle."

In this brief reply, the author cautions that, to remain faithful to the Constitution when referring to underlying principles, we must never forget it is a text …