Constitutional Law Commons^™

Heads, Secularists Win; Tails, Believers Lose—Returning Only Free Exercise To The Political Process, Teresa Stanton Collett

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—First Amendment And Establishment Clause—The Wall Of Separation Crumbles. Agostini V. Felton, 117 S. Ct. 1997 (1997)., Missy Mcjunkins

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Congressional Alternatives In The Wake Of City Of Boerne V. Flores: The (Limited) Role Of Congress In Protecting Religious Freedom From State And Local Infringement, Daniel O. Conkle

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Rhetoric Of Religion, Marci A. Hamilton

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Failure Of Rfra, Ira C. Lupu

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Flawed Economics Of The Dormant Commerce Clause, Paul E. Mcgreal

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ducking Dred Scott: A Response To Alexander And Schauer, Emily Sherwin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hurdling The Police Coercion Requirement: State Alternatives To Colorado V. Connelly, Ronald G. Woodman Jr.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The District Of Columbia Revitalization Act And Criminal Justice: The Federal Government's Assault On Local Authority, Jonathan M. Smith

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

The District of Columbia ("the District") enjoys a unique relationship with the federal government. As a matter of Constitutional pronouncement, citizens of the District are deprived of the right to ultimate control over the content of local laws. The Constitution provides that, "[t]he Congress shall have the power ... to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States."2 Since the District's establishment in 1791, 3 Congress has not hesitated to exercise …

Notes On Notes, Margaret G. Stewart

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Trump?: The Uncertain Constitutionalization Of Structural Regulation Separating Telephone And Video, Susan Dente Ross

Federal Communications Law Journal

The Cable Act of 1984 contained a "cross-ownership" ban, which prohibited telephone companies from entering the local cable video market. Although the ban was challenged by telephone carriers on numerous grounds, the First Amendment was not the basis of any challenge until the mid-1990s when telephone companies sought to characterize themselves not just as carriers but as content suppliers, or "speakers," who were deprived of their right to speak as a result of common carrier regulations that were intended merely to control the economic structure of the communications industry. Using the First Amendment as a new-found constitutional weapon to challenge …

Public School Dress Codes: The Constitutional Debate, Amy Mitchell Wilson

Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Murder In The Abstract: The First Amendment And The Misappropriation Of Brandenburg, Amy K. Dilworth

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When Paladin Enterprises published Hit Man, a manual about murder for hire, it knew and intended that the book would be used for such a purpose. When James Perry used the information contained in Hit Man to murder three innocent persons, he started a legal debate about the scope of First Amendment protections for books that instruct how to commit criminal acts. Many scholars and commentators indicated that Brandenburg v. Ohio contains the applicable constitutional standard; however, in litigation against Paladin, the survivors of the decedents challenged the conventional wisdom.

This Note examines the Brandenburg test for its applicability to …

Aggravating And Mitigating Factors: The Paradox Of Today's Arbitrary And Mandatory Capital Punishment Scheme, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Over twenty years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that both mandatory capital sentencing schemes and total discretionary capital sentencing schemes violate the Eighth Amendment. According to Jeffrey Kirchmeier, the "guided discretion" capital sentencing scheme of sentencing factors that has developed, however, has the constitutional problems of both mandatory death penalties and unlimited discretion death penalties.

Justices Scalia, Blackmun, and Thomas have noted that the mandate of unlimited mitigating circumstances has resulted in an arbitrary system. Kirchmeier argues that today's sentencing scheme is arbitrary also because of undefined aggravating factors, unlimited nonstatutory aggravating factors, and victim impact evidence. According …

Process, The Constitution, And Substantive Criminal Law, Louis D. Bilionis

Michigan Law Review

Criminal law scholars have pined for a substantive constitutional criminal law ever since Henry Hart and Herbert Packer first embraced the notion in the late 1950s and early 1960s. To this day, scholars continue to search for a theory fhat giv:es content to, in Hart's words, "the unmistakable indications that the Constitution means something definite and spμiething serious when it speaks of 'crime.'" To their dismay, the Supreme Court has - with two exceptions - seemingly resisted the notion. The two exceptions are familiar. First came the 1957 case of Lambert v. California, in which the Court came as close …

Balancing The Scales: The 1996 Telecommunications Act And Eleventh Amendment Immunity, Cynthia L. Bauerly

Federal Communications Law Journal

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly created a role for federal courts in the interconnection process. However, parties' ability to seek federal review of interconnection agreements is no longer as straightforward as the language of the Act implies. The Supreme Court's unnecessarily novel and narrow reading of Eleventh Amendment immunity in Seminole Tribe v. Florida renders unenforceable the federal review provisions of the Act against state regulatory commissions. While some interconnection agreements may find their way into federal court, for example, where a party seeking to interconnect sues an incumbent provider instead of the state commission, enforcement of a federal …

Section 253 Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996: A Permanent Physical Appropriation Of Private Property That Must Be Justly Compensated, Jennifer L. Worstell

Federal Communications Law Journal

Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was promulgated in an effort to remove unnecessary regulation by local governments and open up competition among local phone companies, cable providers, and other telecommunications concerns. However, this provision effectively prohibits local governments from managing their rights-of-way. Furthermore, it violates modern Fifth Amendment takings jurisprudence, Section 253 and the first three FCC and court decisions examining it not only have jeopardized effective municipal management and resource allocation discretion, but also have usurped local governments' property rights without just compensation in explicit violation of the United States Constitution.

Board Of County Commissioners V. Umbehr: The Inadequacies Of Extending Pickering Analysis To Government Contractors, Luther D. Tupponce

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note challenges the restrictive First Amendment free speech protection that the Supreme Court gave to government contractors in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr when it applied the Pickering balancing test, developed nearly thirty years ago in Pickering v. Board of Education in the context of government employees. It does so by first questioning whether the First Amendment free speech protections given to government employees should be similar for government contractors. It then explores whether the Pickering balancing test should be applied to cases involving government contractors as it was in Umbehr.

The author concludes that the Court improperly …

Raines V. Byrd: A Death Knell For The Congressional Suit?, Adam L. Blank

Mercer Law Review

In Raines v. Byrd, the Supreme Court of the United States denied standing to six members of Congress who challenged the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. In its first consideration of congressional standing in nearly two decades, the Court held that a perceived diminution in institutional voting strength did not create a sufficiently particularized injury in fact to satisfy the Article III "case or controversy" requirement.

Interpreting The Constitution From Inside The Jury Box: Affecting Interstate Commerce As An Element Of The Crime, Richard W. Smith

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Constitution Of Democratic Experimentalism, Michael C. Dorf, Charles F. Sabel

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In this Article, Professors Dorf and Sabel identify a new form of government, democratic experimentalism, in which power is decentralized to enable citizens and other actors to utilize their local knowledge to fit solutions to their individual circumstances, but in which regional and national coordinating bodies require actors to share their knowledge with others facing similar problems. This information pooling, informed by the example of novel kinds of coordination within and among private firms, both increases the efficiency of public administration by encouraging mutual learning among its parts and heightens its accountability through participation of citizens in the decisions that …

Why Now Is Not The Time For Constitutional Amendment: The Limited Reach Of City Of Boerne V. Flores, Kent Greenawalt

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Section Twos And Two Section Fives: Voting Rights And Remedies After Flores, Pamela S. Karlan

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rfra, David P. Currie

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom From Persecution Or Protection Of The Rights Of Conscience?: A Critique Of Justice Scalia's Historical Arguments In City Of Boerne V. Flores, Michael W. Mcconnell

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Supremacy And The Settlement Function, Robert F. Nagel

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why The Congress Was Wrong And The Court Was Right - Reflections On City Of Boerne V. Flores, Ira C. Lupu

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ad Hoc Adjudication: People V. Champion, Another Confusing Element In The Turmoil Following Minnesota V. Dickerson, Audra A. Dial

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Losing Jerusalem - Rfra And The Vocation Of Legal Crusader, Steven D. Smith

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Versions Of Judicial Supremacy, Mark Tushnet

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.