Constitutional Law Commons^™

Multiculturalism And The Bill Of Rights, Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Maine Law Review

The Second Annual Frank M. Coffin Lecture on Law and Public Service was held on October 7, 1993. Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. presented "Multiculturalism and the Bill of Rights."

Oops!... I Infringed Again: An Analysis Of U.S. Copyright And Its Intended Beneficiaries, Gabriele A. Forbes-Bennett

Student Theses and Dissertations

This paper seeks to establish the reasons why federal copyright protection was created, discuss the shifts in reasoning behind major amendments, and explore its effects on copyright holders and the public, with a slight focus on the music industry. Federal copyright has existed in the United States since the late 1700s, with the creation of the Copyright Act in 1790. Adopted from the first copyright law ever created, the English Statute of Anne (1710), the Copyright Act was meant to protect citizens from piracy in a world where the risk of such a thing was rapidly increasing. The stated objective …

A Study In Sovereignty: Federalism, Political Culture, And The Future Of Conservatism, Clint Hamilton

Senior Honors Theses

This thesis confronts symptoms of an issue which is eroding at the principles of conservative advocacy, specifically those dealing with federalism. It contrasts modern definitions of federalism with those which existed in the late 1700s, and then attempts to determine the cause of the change. Concluding that the change was caused by a shift in American political identity, the author argues that the conservative movement must begin a conversation on how best to adapt to the change to prevent further drifting away from conservative principles.

Is The Conditionally Constitutional Doctrine Constitutional?, Pramudya A. Oktavinanda

Indonesia Law Review

Under the Conditionally Constitutional Doctrine, the Indonesian Constitutional Court may declare that a provision of a statute is constitutional if it is read in a way described by the Constitutional Court. In practice, this doctrine allows the Constitutional Court to create new legal norms that might not be covered or even considered in the reviewed statute. The main question is: does the Constitutional Court have any legitimate reasons to use such doctrine? This is especially crucial because the Indonesian House of Representatives once banned the doctrine through amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court in 2011 and …

Remedies Symposium: Upstairs Downstairs: Morales-Santana And The Right To A Remedy In Comparative Law, Jerfi Uzman

ConLawNOW

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sessions v. Morales-Santana has refueled a classic debate about constitutional remedies in equal protection cases. The ways in which courts should respond to underinclusive legislation is a question that is fundamental to the idea of constitutional rights. Not just in the United States but throughout the Western world, courts struggle with the dilemma raised in Morales-Santana. In this article, I seek to broaden the debate by putting Morales-Santana in a comparative perspective. Drawing from the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Supreme Court of …

Impact Of 2001 - 2016 Supreme Court Establishment Clause Cases, Nicole Cumming

Honors Theses

This study will look at United States Supreme Court Establishment Clause cases from 2001-2016. During those 16 years, the Court decided 1,276 cases. Only 10 of those cases dealt with the establishment clause.

At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, which existed in many other countries at the time of America's founding. This idea has become vital to the values Americans hold dear. Throughout history, religious freedom and tolerance have been celebrated, and most of that is due to the Establishment Clause. However, there is …

Originalism’S Claims And Their Implications, André Leduc

Arkansas Law Review

In this article I explore six of the most fundamental disagreements between originalism and its critics over originalism’s implications. These implications—and the implications of the critics’ alternatives—figure prominently in the arguments advanced in the debate. Reconstructing these arguments in their strongest possible form permits the confusion and misdirection in the debate over originalism to emerge. First, originalism argues that it best comports with our republican democracy. Judicial review, performed by unelected judges with lifetime appointments, may appear inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our democratic republic. Originalism argues that deference to the original understandings or expectations with respect to the …

April 25, 2018: It’S The Stupid Tax Cut, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “It’s the Stupid Tax Cut“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Neil Gorsuch And The Return Of Rule-Of-Law Due Process, Nathan Chapman

Popular Media

Something curious happened at the Supreme Court last week. While the country was glued to the Cirque du Trump, the rule of law made a comeback, revived by Neil Gorsuch, whose place on the Court may prove to be one of Trump’s most important legacies.

Unlike the partisan gerrymander and First Amendment cases currently pending before the Court, immigration cases are usually long on textual analysis and short on grand themes. Accordingly, court-watchers didn’t have especially high expectations for Sessions v. Dimaya.

Kratom Crackdown: How The Dea Abused Its Emergency Scheduling Authority Under The Controlled Substances Act, Olivia Castillo

University of Miami Law Review

The Drug Enforcement Administration wields tremendous power at scheduling a new drug or substance on an emergency basis under the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA newly leveled this power at a plant—kratom—with the potential to curb the menacing opioid epidemic in North America. This unprecedented effort has generated considerable controversy. Many individuals remonstrated the agency’s action, especially those facing life-threatening hardships because of the opioid crisis. Members of Congress also took a stand against the DEA’s unrivalled move to schedule kratom, suggesting that the agency had abused the emergency scheduling authority delegated by the legislative branch.

This Comment explores the …

The Travel Ban And Presidential Power, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Military Force And The Constitution, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] Last week, for the second time since becoming president, President Donald Trump ordered a military strike on Syria without seeking or obtaining authorization from Congress. Both strikes were responsive to chemical-weapons attacks that, American intelligence analysts say, the Syrian government launched against its own people.

Many believe that these forceful responses to horrific war crimes involving banned weapons were morally justified. But were they constitutional?

Til It Happens To You: Providing Victims Of Sexual Assault With Their Own Legal Representation, Erin J. Heuring

Idaho Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remedies Symposium: Statutory Damages And Standing After Spokeo V. Robins, Richard L. Heppner Jr.

ConLawNOW

In Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts may no longer infer the existence of an injury in fact—and thus constitutional standing—from a statute’s use of a particular remedy, such as a statutory or liquidated damages provision. But Spokeo also directed courts to consider whether Congress intended to identify an intangible harm and elevate it to the status of a “concrete” injury in fact when deciding standing questions. This article argues that courts can and should continue to pay close attention to the structure and language of statutory remedial provisions in making that assessment. The article proposes …

April 20, 2018: Acts Of Legislative Hatred, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Acts of Legislative Hatred“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Compelled Speech, Expressive Conduct, And Wedding Cakes: A Commentary On Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Andrew Jensen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the most important same-sex rights case since Obergefell v. Hodges and will determine if businesses and individuals have a First Amendment right to refuse serving gay weddings against their conscience. In this case, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a custom cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins to celebrate their wedding because it was against his Christian beliefs. The Supreme Court will decide whether the First Amendment gave Phillips this right of refusal or whether Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws will compel him to serve same-sex weddings. This commentary argues …

Remedies Symposium: The Brand V. The Man: Considering A Constructive Trust As A Remedy For President Trump's Alleged Violations Of The Foreign Emoluments Clause, Kimberly Breedon, A. Christopher Bryant

ConLawNOW

When the Framers of our national Constitution included the Foreign Emoluments Clause, they did so as a prophylactic against government corruption, but they provided no specified remedy for violations the clause. In this brief essay, we evaluate the viability of an equitable remedy borrowed from the private law of trusts—specifically, the constructive trust—as a potential retrospective remedy for such violations by a President. We first provide context by reviewing the legal claims and requests for relief in three lawsuits currently pending against Donald J. Trump alleging multiple and ongoing Emoluments Clause violations. We then turn to the doctrines governing the …

The Gerrymander And The Constitution: Two Avenues Of Analysis And The Quest For A Durable Precedent, Edward B. Foley

William & Mary Law Review

It has been notoriously difficult for the United States Supreme Court to develop a judicially manageable—and publicly comprehensible—standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims, a standard comparable in this respect to the extraordinarily successful “one person, one vote” principle articulated in the Reapportionment Revolution of the 1960s. This difficulty persists because the quest has been for a gerrymandering standard that is universalistic in the same way that “one person, one vote” is: derived from abstract ideas of political theory, like the equal right of citizens to participate in electoral politics. But other domains of constitutional law employ particularistic modes of reasoning …

Gerrymandering And Association, Daniel P. Tokaji

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Election Law “Federalism” And The Limits Of The Antidiscrimination Framework, Franita Tolson

William & Mary Law Review

If the United States Supreme Court conceived of the right to vote as an active entitlement that safeguards other fundamental rights rather than as a passive privilege that permits courts to prioritize state sovereignty over broad enfranchisement, then many of the errors that have become commonplace in our system of elections would not occur. It is unlikely, however, that the Court will take the steps necessary to extend the constitutional protections afforded to the right to vote. In recent years, the Court has sharply circumscribed Congress’s ability to protect the right to vote under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, rejecting …

April 14, 2018: “No Pardon For Trump”, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “No Pardon for Trump” discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Taking The Fifth: How The Tenth Circuit Determined The Right Against Self-Incrimination Is "More Than A Trial Right" In Vogt V. City Of Hays, Daniel J. De Cecco

Pepperdine Law Review

In Vogt v. City of Hays, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is more than a trial right and applies to the use of compelled statements in probable cause hearings as well as in criminal trials. While the Self-Incrimination Clause states that the right applies “in a criminal case,” there is a circuit split regarding the definition of a “criminal case.” The Tenth Circuit joined the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in finding that the right against self-incrimination applies to more than a trial, relying on the common …

How Law Employs Historical Narratives: The Great Compromise As An Example, Louis J. Sirico Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

Although historians base their interpretations on facts, they often use the same facts to tell a variety of stories. Of the varying stories, which gain acceptance by society and the courts? To explore this question, this Article examines the historiography of the Great Compromise. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the deputies debated how to elect members of the House and Senate. Should each state have equal representation or should each state have representation based on its population? The heavily populated states wanted population-based (proportional) representation while the less populated states wanted a one-state-one-vote system. After difficult debates, the Convention, by …

John Fitisemanu, Et. Al. V. United States Of America, Et. Al., Rafael Cox Alomar

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

A New Natural Law Reading Of The Constitution, Santiago Legarre

Louisiana Law Review

The article focuses on how natural law can factor into constitutional interpretation in subtle but significant ways and mentions natural law has two different levels of presence in constitutional law.

Law School News: 'Marketplace Of Ideas' Imperiled (04-05-2018), David A. Logan

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Media Centralization Imperils Marketplace Of Ideas 04-05-2018, David A. Logan

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Vice Presidential Immunity In The Age Of Impeachment: A Fresh Look At The Agnew Precedent, Mark E. Coon

ConLawNOW

Since the 1973 prosecution of incumbent Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken the position that sitting Vice Presidents are not constitutionally immune from criminal prosecution in the same way that sitting Presidents are. With the modern rise of prosecution and impeachment as weapons in the political arsenal, the Agnew precedent threatens to upset the constitutional balance of power because it makes Vice Presidents easily removable. This essay argues that the Agnew precedent is incorrect and that Vice Presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution while in office because of the Vice Presidency’s role in the …

Characterizing Power For Separation-Of-Powers Purposes, Tuan N. Samahon

University of Richmond Law Review

The U.S. Constitution parcels "legislative," "executive," and "judicial" powers among the separate branches of the federal government, but leaves those powers undefined. Accordingly, characterizing exercises of power becomes an important threshold inquiry in separation-of-powers disputes. This symposium Essay canvasses four competing judicial approaches to the characterization of power: functional inquiry; identity-of-the-officer formalism; historical induction; and skepticism. In this area, Justice Scalia's formalism has been particularly influential but created considerable tension with original public meaning originalism. This Essay explains how Scalia's formalism led to his embrace of delegation and concludes by cautioning against judicial oversimplification in the characterization inquiry.

State V. Nelson: Determining "Reasonable Suspicion" For Investigatory Stops In Maine, Sandra Denison Shannon

Maine Law Review

In 1994 the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held in State v. Nelson that a police officer's observation of motorist Theodore Nelson consuming a single can of beer over a one-hour time period did not, by itself, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Nelson thereafter illegally operated the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. This Note analyzes the Law Court's decision in Nelson. In its analysis, this Note compares Nelson to several other Maine opinions and recommends that, if the Maine Law Court is to continue to adhere to both objective and subjective standards in …