Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Self-Incrimination Clause Explained And Its Future Predicted, Ronald J. Allen

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Liability Rules For Constitutional Rights: The Case Of Mass Detentions, Eugene Kontorovich

ExpressO

Constitutional law assumes that rights should always be protected by property rules – that is, the government can only take them with the individual’s consent. This Article extends to constitutional law the insights of Calabresi and Melamed’s famous article on property and liability rules. Whether rights should be protected by property rules or liability rules depends on the transaction costs of negotiating a transfer of rights. As transaction costs rise, liability rules become more attractive.

This Article shows that liability rules can have an important role in constitutional law. Using mass detentions in national security emergencies as a case study, …

Canadian Fundamental Justice And American Due Process: Two Models For A Guarantee Of Basic Adjudicative Fairness, David M. Siegel

ExpressO

This paper traces how the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States have each used the basic guarantee of adjudicative fairness in their respective constitutions to effect revolutions in their countries’ criminal justice systems, through two different jurisprudential models for this development. It identifies a relationship between two core constitutional structures, the basic guarantee and enumerated rights, and shows how this relationship can affect the degree to which entrenched constitutional rights actually protect individuals. It explains that the different models for the relationship between the basic guarantee and enumerated rights adopted in Canada and the United States, an “expansive …

The Coherence Of Orthodox Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Samuel C. Rickless

ExpressO

In the legal academy it is widely believed that the U.S. Supreme Court's orthodox (post-Katz, pre-Houghton) fourth amendment jurisprudence is theoretically incoherent. In particular, the Court has been criticized (on doctrinal and textual grounds) for accepting (i) Justice Harlan's definition of a "search" as an infringement of a subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, (ii) the Warrant Requirement and Probable Cause Requirement (according to which searches and seizures without a warrant or probable cause are presumptively unreasonable), and (iii) the Exclusionary Rule (according to which any evidence obtained in violation of a person’s fourth …

In The Name Of National Security Or Insecurity?: The Potential Indefinite Detention Of Non-Citizen Certified Terrorists In The United States And The United Kingdom In The Aftermath Of September 11, 2001, Dana L. Keith

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

The Military -Judicial Nexus In Response To Terrorism: Kkk And Alqaeda, Wayne Mccormack

ExpressO

In considering the validity of "enemy combatant" status and military detention for alleged terrorists, several additional propositions emerge. Indefinite military detention of a US citizen arrested on US soil for a domestic crime is far beyond the pale of basic constitutional underpinnings. With respect to noncitizens and citizens captured overseas, military power is arguable but far from solid. In that event, why not take the route that does the least disruption to our system? Second, because the law abhors incoherence, we should be able to make coherent distinctions among alleged terrorists for the purpose of deciding who is tried in …

Garrity V. New Jersey And Its Progeny: How Lower Courts Are Weakening The Strong Constitutional Protections Afforded Police Officers, Donald Wm. Driscoll

Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Behind The Shield? Law Enforcement Agencies And The Self-Critical Analysis Privilege, Josh Jones

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judge Noonan's J'Accuse . . . !, Brannon P. Denning

ExpressO

This review of John Noonan’s book Narrowing the Nation’s Power: The Supreme Court Sides with the States critically evaluates the evidence Judge Noonan offers in support of his thesis that the Court's recent federalism decisions have done violence to the Constitution, and put Congress's ability to govern effectively at risk. I conclude that while one may quarrel with aspects of the Court's recent approach to federalism questions, the indictment Judge Noonan has penned fails to acknowledge reasonable arguments that contradict his thesis, and that he unfairly suggests that the Court has abandoned good faith legal analysis in favor of political …

Lawrence And Same-Sex Marriage Bans: On Constitutional Interpretation And Sophistical Rhetoric, Mark Strasser

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

“Preemptive War”: Is It Constitutional?, John B. Mitchell

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Secularism's Laws: State Blaine Amendments And Religious Persecution, Kyle Duncan

ExpressO

The State Blaine Amendments are provisions in thirty-seven state constitutions that restrict persons’ and organizations’ access to public benefits on religious grounds. They arose largely in the mid- to late-1800s in response to bitter strife between an established Protestant majority and a growing Catholic minority that sought equal access to public funding for Catholic schools. After the failure to pass a federal constitutional amendment—the "Blaine Amendment"—that would have sealed off public school funds from "sectarian" institutions, similar provisions proliferated in state constitutions. These "State Blaines" have often been interpreted, under their plain terms, as erecting religion-sensitive barriers to the flow …

Takings Formalism And Regulatory Formulas: Exactions And The Consequences Of Clarity, Mark Fenster

ExpressO

A vocal minority of the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced its suspicion that lower courts and state and local administrative agencies are systematically ignoring constitutional rules intended to limit, through heightened judicial review, exactions as a land use regulatory tool. Exactions are the concessions local governments require of property owners as conditions for the issuance of the entitlements that enable the intensified use of real property. In two cases decided over the past two decades, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), the Court has established under the Takings Clause a logic and metrics …

Circuit-Specific Application Of The Internal Revenue Code: An Unconstitutional Tax, Jeffrey S. Kinsler

ExpressO

My manuscript unmasks a dirty little secret of the federal government, namely, that the Internal Revenue Service is applying various tax laws in a non-uniform manner in violation of the Tax Uniformity Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 1) of the United States Constitution. It is indisputable that the Framers of the Constitution intended for federal taxes be applied uniformly throughout the nation; that is, residents of New York ought to pay the same tax as residents of California. The IRS’s practice, however, is quite the contrary.

Affirmative Action: More Efficient Than Color Blindness, Abraham Lee Wickelgren

ExpressO

One of the most compelling reasons against affirmative action is the principle of color blindness, that is, the idea that race is an irrelevant characteristic that should not affect higher education admissions or hiring decisions. Despite its intuitive appeal, this paper shows that adherence to this principle impedes economic efficiency when there has been past discrimination based on color. Past discrimination creates inefficiencies in the economy that persist across generations. Because of this persistence, race is not an irrelevant characteristic for firms and universities looking to hire or admit the best candidates. Affirmative action, not color-blindness, is necessary to reduce …

Salama V. Idf Commander In Judea And Samaria, Aharon Barak, Jacob Turkel, Eliezer Rivlin

Translated Opinions

Facts: Based on classified evidence tying them to terror organizations, detention orders were issued against the three petitioners. The orders were extended by respondent, and these extensions were confirmed by the Military Appeals Court. Petitioners claim that the extensions are not legal. They argue that respondents should corroborate the suspicions against them with further investigation. This would allow the detention orders to be replaced by a criminal proceeding.

Held: The Court noted that the basic premise of administrative detention is the need to prevent future danger to the security of the state of public safety. Administrative detention is not meant …

The Perils Of "Consensus": Hans Kelsen And The Legal Philosophy Of The United Nations, J. Peter Pham

ExpressO

Recently the United States and a number of its traditional allies have clashed over a variety of foreign policy issues that are profoundly juridical: the authority for war and peace, the International Criminal Court, etc. The source of these recent tensions is to be located at a level deeper than that of narrow national interests and specific policies. Rather, they arise from significant differences concerning the nature of "consensus" and, ultimately, legal philosophy. While the United Nations and many other international organizations derive their legal visions from the philosophy of law of Hans Kelsen (1881-1973), one of the most important …

The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen

Michigan Law Review

Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional. As …

Judging The Next Emergency: Judicial Review And Individual Rights In Times Of Crisis, David Cole

Michigan Law Review

As virtually every law student who studies Marbury v. Madison learns, Chief Justice John Marshall's tactical genius was to establish judicial review in a case where the result could not be challenged. As a technical matter, Marbury lost, and the executive branch won. As furious as President Jefferson reportedly was with the decision, there was nothing he could do about it, for there was no mandate to defy. The Court's decision offered no remedy for Marbury himself, whose rights were directly at issue, and whose rights the Court found had indeed been violated. But over time, it became clear that …

Mediated Popular Constitutionalism, Barry Friedman

Michigan Law Review

There are divergent views in the legal academy concerning judicial review, but at their core these views share a common (and possibly flawed) premise. The premise is that the exercise of judicial review is countermajoritarian in nature. There is a regrettable lack of clarity in the relevant scholarship about what "countermajoritarian" actually means. At bottom it often seems to be a claim, and perhaps must be a claim, that when judges invalidate governmental decisions based upon constitutional requirements, they act contrary to the preferences of the citizenry. Some variation on this premise seems to drive most normative scholarship regarding judicial …

Foreword: A Silk Purse?, John T. Noonan Jr.

Michigan Law Review

On March 2, 1801, President John Adams appointed forty-two persons to be justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. John Marshall, doubling as Secretary of State as well as Chief Justice, failed to deliver the commissions. Adams's term expired. James Madison, Marshall's successor as Secretary of State, withheld seventeen of the commissions. In 1802, William Marbury and three other appointees to this minor office brought mandamus against Madison in the Supreme Court. Madison was ordered to show cause why the writ should not issue. Congress abolished the June sitting of the Court. Only in 1803 was the case …

Legislating Chevron, Elizabeth Garrett

Michigan Law Review

One of the most significant administrative law cases, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, lnc., is routinely referred to as the "counter-Marbury." The reference suggests that Chevron's command to courts to defer to certain reasonable agency interpretations of statutes is superficially an uneasy fit with the declaration in Marbury v. Madison that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." According to the consensus view, Chevron deference is consistent with Marbury, as long as Congress has delegated to agencies the power to make policy by interpreting ambiguous statutory language or filling …

Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark Tushnet

Michigan Law Review

The invention in the late twentieth century of what I call weak-form systems of judicial review provides us with the chance to see in a new light some traditional debates within U.S. constitutional law and theory, which are predicated on the fact that the United States has strong-form judicial review. Strong- and weak-form systems operate on the level of constitutional design, in the sense that their characteristics are specified in constitutional documents or in deep-rooted constitutional traditions. After sketching the differences between strong- and weak-form systems, I turn to design features that operate at the next lower level. Here legislatures …

Comparative Constitutionalism In A New Key, Paul W. Kahn

Michigan Law Review

Law is a symbolic system that structures the political imagination. The "rule of law" is a shorthand expression for a cultural practice that constructs a particular understanding of time and space, of subjects and groups, as well as of authority and legitimacy. It is a way of projecting, maintaining, and discovering meaning in the world of historical events and political possibilities. The rule of law - as opposed to the techniques of lawyering - is not the possession of lawyers. It is a characterization of the polity, which operates both descriptively and normatively in public perception. Ours, we believe, is …

Why Europe Rejected American Judicial Review - And Why It May Not Matter, Alec Stone Sweet

Michigan Law Review

In this Article, I explore the question of why constitutional review, but not American judicial review, spread across Europe. I will also argue that, despite obvious organic differences between the American and European systems of review, there is an increasing convergence in how review actually operates. I proceed as follows. In Part I, I examine the debate on establishing judicial review in Europe, focusing on the French. In Parts II and III, I contrast the European and the American models of review, and briefly discuss why the Kelsenian constitutional court diffused across Europe. In Part IV, I argue that despite …

Federal Maritime Commission V. South Carolina State Ports Authority: Small Iceberg Or Just The Tip?, Gordon G. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Speaking Outdoors, Lewis H. Larue

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Marshall V Madison: The Supreme Court And Original Intent, 1803-1835, Gordon Lloyd

School of Public Policy Working Papers

Should the justices of the Supreme Court rely on “original intent” as the foundation for constitutional interpretation? Or should they be free to interpret the Constitution in light of hermeneutical approaches created by current philosophies of law? This essay examines the Marshall Court to determine whether its opinions take their bearings from the American Founding or instead rely on a philosophy of jurisprudence that can be separated from the Founding. The purposes of this essay are fourfold: 1) to provide a comprehensive account of the use of the Framers by the Marshall Court, 2) address the normative question of the …

Moral Rights, Judicial Review, And Democracy: A Response To Horacio Spector, Laura S. Underkuffler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Arkansas's Entry Into The Not-So-New Judicial Federalism, Ka Tina R. Hodge

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.