Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Origins Of The Privileges Or Immunities Clause, Part Iii: Andrew Johnson And The Constitutional Referendum Of 1866, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

This Article divides the events of 1866 into four phases. First, I discuss the early framing debates and the political rupture between congressional Republicans and President Andrew Johnson that occurred in the spring of 1866. Johnson’s March 27 veto of the Civil Rights Act and the congressional override were major public events and signaled what would become the central issue in the fall elections: whether the southern states should be readmitted without condition, or whether they must first be forced to protect the rights of citizens of the United States. The second Part discusses the final framing and initial public …

Inkblot: The Ninth Amendment As Textual Justification For Judicial Enforcement Of The Right To Privacy, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

One of the more indelible moments in late twentieth century legal discourse occurred when Judge Robert Bork described the proper response of a judge confronted with the Ninth Amendment. Nominated to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, Judge Bork appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and declared that courts had no business enforcing the mysterious clause at all. Given the scarcity of historical evidence regarding the original meaning of the amendment, using the Ninth Amendment to strike down a law would say more about the predilections of the judge than the requirements of the text. Here is the famous …

Commandeering And Constitutional Change, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

Coming in the midst of the Rehnquist Court’s federalism revolution, Printz v. United States held that federal commandeering of state executive officers is “fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” The Printz majority’s discussion of historical evidence, however, inverted Founding-era perspectives. When Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton endorsed commandeering during the ratification debates, they were not seeking to expand federal power. Quite the opposite. The Federalists capitulated to states’ rights advocates who had recently rejected a continental impost tax because Hamilton, among others, insisted on hiring federal collectors rather than commandeering state collectors. The commandeering power, it turns …

Constitutional Convergence And Customary International Law, Rebecca Crootof

Law Faculty Publications

In Getting to Rights: Treaty Ratification, Constitutional Convergence, and Human Rights Practice, Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg, and Beth Simmons study the effects of post-World War II human rights texts on domestic constitutions, with a particular focus on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After analyzing 680 constitutional systems compiled by the Comparative Constitutions Project to create a list of seventy-four constitutionally protected rights, the authors evaluate whether countries incorporate internationally codified human rights into their domestic constitutions, whether ratification of international agreements affects the probability of rights incorporation, and whether …

"Extraordinary Circumstances": The Legacy Of The Gang Of 14 And A Proposal For Judicial Nominations Reform, Michael Gerhardt, Richard Painter

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

"If The Plaintiffs Are Right, Grutter Is Wrong": Why Fisher V. University Of Texas Presents An Opportunity For The Supreme Court To Overturn A Flawed Decision, Brooks H. Spears

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sense And Severability, Tobias A. Dorsey

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Virginia's Challenges To The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act Did Not Invoke Nullification, Robert S. Claiborne Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Anti-Injunction Act, Congressional Inactivity, And Pre-Enforcement Challenges To § 5000a Of The Tax Code, Kevin C. Walsh

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Litigating Federal Health Care Legislation And The Interstices Of Procedure, Wendy Collins Perdue

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Facial And As-Applied Challenges To The Individual Mandate Of The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, Edward A. Hartnett

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Forbearance, A. Christopher Bryant

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Doctrine: Five Questions That Will Determine The Aca's Constitutional Fate, Bradley W. Joondeph

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rhetoric Hits The Road: State Challenges To The Affordable Care Act Implementation, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

States' Rights And State Standing, Stephen I. Vladeck

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Response: There Is No New General Common Law Of Severability, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

In this solicited response to The New General Common Law of Severability, I first offer an interpretation of Ayotte and subsequent Supreme Court decisions as continuous with existing doctrine instead of a departure from it. I then suggest that much of Scoville’s evidence for a federalization of severability doctrine is better viewed as evidence of doctrinal looseness rather than of doctrinal change. I conclude by returning to the lessons of severability’s doctrinal history, suggesting that the prehistory of severability doctrine may supply a better guide for how courts should deal with problems of partial unconstitutionality in the future.

The Anti-Injunction Act, Congressional Inactivity, And Pre-Enforcement Challenges To Section 5000a Of The Tax Code, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

Section 5000A of the Tax Code is one of the most controversial provisions of federal law currently on the books. It is the minimum essential coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA" or "Act")-a provision more popularly known as the individual mandate. Opponents challenged this provision immediately upon its enactment on March 23, 2010. The Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments about its constitutionality in one of these challenges, just over two years later.

There is a puzzle surrounding the Supreme Court's consideration of these cases. Everyone seems to want an answer to the question …

The Ghost That Slayed The Mandate, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed …

Reading The Standing Tea Leaves In American Electric Power Co. V. Connecticut, Bradford C. Mank

University of Richmond Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court by an equally divided vote offour to four affirmed the Second Circuit's decision finding standing and jurisdiction in the case in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut. While not binding as precedent beyond the Second Circuit,the case offers clues to how the Court is likely to rule in future standing cases. This article discusses the likely identities of the four Justices on each side of the standing issue in the case, as well as how Justice Sotomayor might have voted if she had not recused herself. Furthermore, the article examines how the decision expand- ed on …

Making Popular Constitutionalism Work, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Popular constitutionalism defies easy definition. Its leading theorists fail to offer a common reading of constitutional history, a common methodology, or even a common set of remedies. Given these diverse approaches, it is little wonder that one recurring complaint among popular constitutionalism's critics is that the theory itself is incoherent. This criticism is overstated. Even as there are various strands of popular constitutionalism, its leading theorists do share one key attribute, a populist sensibility-a common belief that the American people (and their elected representatives) should play an ongoing role in shaping contemporary constitutional meaning. The question remains how best to …

Federalism, Individual Rights And Judicial Engagement, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

Contemporary “rights talk” under the American Constitution tends to focus on individual rights or those rights that can be perfected in the case of a single individual. This would include, for example, the rights to free expression, free exercise of religion, sexual autonomy, or the right to equal treatment. Under the broad umbrella of individual-rights talk, theoretical discussions generally involve whether courts ought to recognize a particular individual right or what level of scrutiny (or engagement) ought to apply to judicially identified individual rights.

From the beginning of our history as a nation, however, the concept of legally cognizable rights …

Upside-Down Judicial Review, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

The countermajoritarian difficulty assumes that the democratically elected branches are majoritarian and the unelected Supreme Court is not. But sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes it is the elected branches that are out of sync with majority will and the Supreme Court that bridges the gap, turning the conventional understanding of the Court's role on its head. Instead of a countermajoritarian Court checking the majoritarian branches, we see a majoritarian Court checking the not-so-majoritarian branches, enforcing prevailing norms when the representative branches do not. What emerges is a distinctly majoritarian, upside-down understanding of judicial review. This Article illustrates, explains, and …

The False Promise Of The Converse-1983 Action, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

The federal government is out of control. At least that's what many states will tell you. Not only is the federal government passing patently unconstitutional legislation, but its street-level officers are ignoring citizens' constitutional rights. How can states stop this federal juggernaut? Many are advocating a "repeal amendment, " whereby two-thirds of the states could vote to repeal federal legislation. But the repeal amendment will only address unconstitutional legislation, not unconstitutional actions. States can't repeal a stop-and-frisk that occurred last Thursday. States might, however, enact a so-called "converse-1983" action. The idea for converse-1983 laws has been around for some time …

Religious Neutrality In The Early Republic, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

Governmental neutrality is the heart of the modern Free Exercise Clause. Mindful of this core principle, which prevents the government from treating individuals differently because of their religious convictions, the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that a neutral law can be constitutionally applied despite any incidental burdens it might impose on an individual’s exercise of religion. Conscientious objectors such as Quakers, for instance, do not have a constitutional right to be exempt from a military draft. Thus, neutrality now forms both the core and the outer limit of constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. Judged according to founding-era views, …

A Vanishing Virginia Constitution?, Hon. Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Brave New World Of Stop And Frisk, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

In this article, the author Ron Bacigal discusses the editorials, The Shame of New York by Bob Herbert and Fighting Crime Where the Criminals Are by Heather MacDonald. These editorials were prompted by the New York City Police Department's release of figures regarding "stop and frisk" incidents within New York City.' MacDonald and Herbert reacted to the same statistical report by putting two very different spins on the raw data. While it's always helpful to compile empirical evidence, Bacigal suggests that we also need to look beyond the mere numbers. If you put aside anecdotal versions of encounters between minorities …

History Repeats Itself: The Post-Furman Return To Arbitrariness In Capital Punishment, Lindsey S. Vann

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I of this comment provides a brief review of Furmanandthe circumstances leading to the decision. Part II discusses thefactors indicating current arbitrariness and other recurring factors surrounding the American death penalty. Part III examines the development of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause since Furman. Finally, Part IV discusses how the Supreme Court should apply its contemporary Eighth Amendment doctrine to the current circumstances surrounding the imposition of the death penalty.

Coase And The Constitution: A New Approach To Federalism, F.E Guerra-Pujol

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

This paper proposes a new approach to the centuries-old question of federalism. In a word, we approach the problem offederalism from a Coasian or property-rights perspective. That is, instead of attempting to draw an arbitrary boundary line between state and federal spheres of power through traditional legal or semantic analysis of the constitution and previous judicial precedents, this paper proposes the creation of alternative 'federalism markets" in which governmental powers and functions would be allocated to Congress, the states, or even private firms through decentralized auction mechanisms and secondary markets. The paper is divided into five parts. Following a brief …

Recognition: A Case Study On The Original Understanding Of Executive Power, Robert J. Reinstein

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Complexities Of Judicial Takings, D. Benjamin Barros

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.