Constitutional Law Commons^™

Treating The Pen And The Sword As Constitutional Equals: How And Why The Supreme Court Should Apply Its First Amendment Expertise To The Great Second Amendment Debate, David G. Browne

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Congress, Civil Liberties, And The War On Terrorism, Neal Devins

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In exercising his war-making powers, the President has historically pursued war-related initiatives that implicate civil liberties. Meanwhile, the Congress, with little incentive to resist these initiatives, has played a steadily declining role in warmaking. In this Essay, Professor Devins examines this dynamic, and argues that with Congress largely standing on the sidelines as the President leads the nation in war, it is the American public that has become the principal check on the powers of the President in wartime.

State Courts As Agents Of Federalism: Power And Interpretation In State Constitutional Law, James A. Gardner

William & Mary Law Review

In the American constitutional tradition, federalism is commonly understood as a mechanism designed to institutionalize a kind of permanent struggle between state and national power. The same American constitutional tradition also holds that courts are basically passive institutions whose mission is to apply the law impartially while avoiding inherently political power struggles. These two commonplace understandings conflict on their face. The conflict may be dissolved for federal courts by conceiving their resistance to state authority as the impartial consequence of limitations on state power imposed by the United States Constitution. This reconciliation, however, is unavailable for state courts, which, by …

What If I Want My Kids To Watch Pornography?: Protecting Children From "Indecent" Speech, Ashutosh Bhagwat

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Under current First Amendment doctrine, a law directed at indecent speech is treated as "content-based" regulation of speech, and thus must satisfy the "strict scrutiny" test to survive constitutional challenge - the regulation must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. A number of laws regulating indecent speech have been passed in recent years, and when challenged, the government has defended these regulations on the ground that the State has a compelling interest in the protection of children from harmful materials. Underlying this argument, however, is a deep ambiguity regarding the precise nature of the government's legitimate objectives …

Federalism, U.S. Style, James S. Heller

Library Staff Publications

No abstract provided.

The Uneasy Case For Department Of Justice Control Of Federal Litigation, Neal Devins, Michael Herz

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Wagering On Religious Liberty, Nathan B. Oman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Politics And Principle: An Alternative Take On Seth P. Waxman's Defending Congress, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Vectoral Federalism, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

In this Article, I offer a new framework for understanding federalism. “Vectoral federalism” engages directional metaphors—horizontal and vertical—to group various federalism doctrines together into two principal groups.Horizontal federalism concerns the battle between the federal and the state governments for the power to regulate individuals. Vertical federalism concerns the federal government’s power to regulate states and the states’ concomitant power to resist this regulation. Viewing federalism doctrines as having vertical or horizontal vectors (or both) identifies their common justifications and characteristics, which can assist in understanding and in applying the principles of federalism. The directional synthesis also illuminates and helps to …

The Constitution Outside The Courts, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Living Commerce Clause: Federalism In Progressive Political Theory And The Commerce Clause After Lopez And Morrison, Eric R. Claeys

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

"Living Constitution " ideas are most often associated with individual-rights guarantees like equal protection and due process, but they were originally developed in the early twentieth century to revolutionize the law of the structural Constitution - including the Commerce Clause. In this Article, Professor Claeys interprets Progressive political theory, which played a crucial role in legitimating the expansion of the national government. As applied to federalism, Progressive living-Constitution theory required that the Commerce Clause be interpreted as a constitutional transmitter letting the national government regulate whatever the American people deem to be a national problem. He suggests that this notion …

To What Extent Does The Power Of Government To Determine The Boundaries And Conditions Of Lawful Commerce Permit Government To Declare Who May Advertise And Who May Not?, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Federal Judicial Selection As War, Part Three: The Role Of Ideology, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Federalism-Rights Nexus: Explaining Why Senate Democrats Tolerate Rehnquist Court Decision Making But Not The Rehnquist Court, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Fourth Amendment "Search" In The Age Of Technology: Postmodern Perspectives, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Section 7: Federalism, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Marbury Ascendant: The Rehnquist Court And The Power To "Say What The Law Is", Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Metes And Bounds Of State Sovereign Immunity, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

What are the constitutional parameters of state sovereign immunity? The Court has made clear that certain provisions of Article I contain no authority for overriding state sovereign immunity, while at least one other provision, the Fourteenth Amendment, permits Congress to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity. How is this constitutional line drawn? It is temporally bound? In other words, are only certain Amendments enacted after the Eleventh Amendment free from absolute subservience to state sovereign immunity? Or, does it divide the original Constitution and its Amendments, meaning that state sovereign immunity permeates the original Constitution but does not infiltrate certain Amendments, …

Crisis And Constitutionalism, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Terrorism And The Bill Of Rights, Rodney A. Smolla

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This year is the Tenth Anniversary of the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, and the Journal is very fortunate and honored to have Professor Rodney Smolla publish an article in this year's volume. Professor Smolla played an integral role in the founding and organizing of not only the Journal, but also the Institute of Bill of Rights Law at William & Mary Law School. The Journal extends its most appreciative thanks to Professor Smolla for all his help.

In this Article, Professor Smolla examines the right to free speech in the context of Black v. Commonwealth, a case …

Spheres Of Autonomy: Reforming The Content Neutrality Doctrine In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Steven J. Heyman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Modern First Amendment jurisprudence almost exclusively prohibits laws restricting freedom of speech based on the content of the speech. In this Article, Professor Steven Heyman takes exception to the content neutrality doctrine, arguing that its strict application both minimizes other interests competing with speech and fails to elevate the premises on which the First Amendment stands.

Antebellum Perspectives On Free Speech, Mark A. Graber

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In his book, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History, Professor Michael Kent Curtis documents the political struggles over free speech rights that took place between the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Professor Curtis looks to these early free speech fights to help define the contours of contemporary speech rights. In this review, Professor Mark A. Graber discusses Professor Curtis's contribution to constitutional history, and the implications of The People's Darling Privilege for constitutional theorists

Speech, Press, And Democracy, Paul Finkelman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Professor Michael Kent Curtis's latest book, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History, chronicles the efforts of ordinary Americans to protect their right to freedom of expression from 1791-1865. Professor Paul Finkelman reviews this book, focusing primarily on Curtis's discussions of suppression of speech prior to and during the Civil War period and additionally providing some thoughts concerning the appropriateness of revoking free speech rights during times of war.

Bits And Bytes: The Carnivore Initiative And The Search And Seizure Of Electronic Mail, Sandy D. Hellums

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note examines the application of Fourth Amendment search and seizure doctrines to the interception of electronic mail within the context of the FBI Carnivore initiative. The author argues that the traditional law of electronic surveillance's understanding of communication is outdated and never contemplated new technologies like Carnivore and their far reaching implications. Consequently, the author argues, that to protect our long-understood expectations of privacy, the search and seizure of electronic documents should be analyzed under the traditional papers analysis. To do so, the Supreme Court would afford the interception electronic documents the highest form of constitutional protect available under …

The Idea Of Public Reason Resuscitated, James P. Madigan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, James Madigan examines the role of public reason in a democratic government, including what views should play a role in determining public reason. Madigan criticizes John Rawls for including comprehensive views in constitutional debates, and argues that only reasons grounded in political values should be used when debating constitutional issues and fundamental rights.

Procedural Justice: Tempering The State's Response To Domestic Violence, Deborah Epstein

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Yet Another Constitutional Crisis?, Keith E. Whittington

William & Mary Law Review

The recent presidential impeachment and the postelection controversy each led many to fear that the United States had either already entered or was about to enter a constitutional crisis. Such concerns seem overwrought. This Article will use those events as a foil for examining the nature of constitutional crises. The Article will distinguish two types of constitutional crises and consider several potential crises in American history, clarifying how crises occur and how they can be averted. Constitutional crises in the United States are rare in large part because of the robustness of the country's informal constitutional practices, reasonably good constitutional …

The Steel Seizure Case: One Of A Kind?, Neal Devins, Louis Fisher

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Rhetoric Of Judicial Critique: From Judicial Restraint To The Virtual Bill Of Rights, Michael J. Gerhardt

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Professor Michael Gerhardt traces the rhetoric employed by national leaders and commentators over the past century to describe popular conceptions of the judicial function. In particular, Professor Gerhardt examines the evolution of the terminology used in popular and political rhetoric, revealing their inconsistent application to political ideologies through time. Professor Gerhardt argues that such shifts in usage correspond with transfers of power between the political authorities controlling the central interests at stake in constitutional adjudication. Professor Gerhardt applies the shortcomings of traditional political rhetoric to the issues surrounding technological advancements, concluding that the proper treatment of technology by the Supreme …

Easing The Spring: Strict Scrutiny And Affirmative Action After The Redistricting Cases, Pamela S. Karlan

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.