Constitutional Law Commons^™

Review Of Regulatory Takings: Law, Economics And Politics, By William A. Fischel, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reviews Regulatory Takings: law, Economics and Politics by William A. Fischel (1997).

William Fischel's Regulatory Takings confronts one of the most difficult and significant questions in constitutional law: how should courts determine which government regulations run afoul of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to provide compensation when it takes private property? Broadly read, the clause would bar government regulations with redistributive consequences, thus rendering the modern regulatory state unconstitutional. This reading, championed by Professor Richard Epstein, has achieved great prominence in academic and political debates, but the vast preponderance of judges and …

Brief Of Lone Wolf, Principal Chief Of The Kiowas, To The Supreme Court Of The American Indian Nations, S. James Anaya

Publications

No abstract provided.

Determining Ripeness Of Substantive Due Process Claims Brought By Landowners Against Local Governments, David S. Mendel

Michigan Law Review

Landowners who sustain economic harm from arbitrary and capricious applications of land use regulations may sue the local government entities responsible for applying those regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the local government entities deprived them of substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A landowner who brings this claim - an "as-applied arbitrary and capricious substantive due process" claim - may in appropriate cases seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees. Despite controversy among courts and commentators over both the definition of property interests protected by the Due Process Clause and the standard …

A Peculiar Privilege In Historical Perspective: The Right To Remain Silent, Albert W. Alschuler

Michigan Law Review

Supreme Court decisions have vacillated between two incompatible readings of the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Court sometimes sees this language as affording defendants and suspects a right to remain silent. This interpretation - a view that countless repetitions of the Miranda warnings have impressed upon the public - asserts that government officials have no legitimate claim to testimonial evidence tending to incriminate the person who possesses it. Although officials need not encourage a suspect to remain silent, they must remain at least neutral toward …

One Bite At The Apple: Reversals Of Convictions Tainted By Prosecutorial Misconduct And The Ban On Double Jeopardy, Rick A. Bierschbach

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial after reversals of convictions tainted by prosecutorial misconduct in the submission of evidence when two conditions are met: (1) the prosecutor intentionally introduced tainted evidence, and (2) excluding the tainted evidence would have left insufficient evidence at trial to support the defendant's conviction. This Note contends that this limited extension of double jeopardy protection is both mandated by the policies underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause and consistent with existing double jeopardy jurisprudence.

Self Incrimination

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Act Or Not? That Is The Question: Self-Incrimination And The Sole Proprietor, Raymond G. Keenan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When The Constable Blunders: A Comparison Of The Law Of Police Interrogation In Canada And The United States, Robert Harvie, Hamar Foster

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores the Supreme Court of Canada's use of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in limiting police interrogations and compares its case decisions with cases from the Supreme Court of the United States. Part II of this Article examines the purposes and policies underlying sections 10(b), 7, and 24(2) of the Charter. Part III then examines the application of sections 10(b) and 7 in situations where (1) suspects are interrogated by uniformed police officers or other persons known to be in authority, and (2) suspects are interrogated surreptitiously by persons not known to be in authority. In both …

Self Incrimination

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Court And The Changing Constitution: A Discussion, Carl Sividorski, James Gardner, Barry Latzer, Peter Galie

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Congressional Call To Arms: The Time Has Come For Congress To Enforce The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, Mark W. Smith

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self Incrimination

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Takings" Jurisprudence In The U.S. Supreme Court: The Past 10 Years, Gregory S. Alexander

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No area of American property law has been more controversial in recent years than the government regulation of uses of private property. No aspect of American constitutional law more sharply poses the dilemma about the legitimate powers of the regulatory state than the requirement that the government pay compensation for takings of property. The purpose of this essay is to acquaint the non-American legal scholar who is unfamiliar with the recent developments in the United States Supreme Court “takings” jurisprudence. The essay does not presuppose any background knowledge about either American constitutional or property law. Instead it attempts to familiarize …

Takings And The Nature Of Property, Laura S. Underkuffler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

“A One Way Ticket To Palookaville”: Supreme Court Takings Jurisprudence After Dolan And Its Implication For New York City’S Waterfront Zoning Resolution, Jill Illan Berger Inbar

Cardozo Law Review

This Note will use the Waterfront Ordinance as a vehicle for examining the new heightened scrutiny standard introduced in Dolan. Part I provides an overview of takings jurisprudence and the traditional pre-Nollan and pre-Dolan standards, which were applied to determine whether an exercise of police power oversteps its bounds and interferes with private property rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. Part II reviews the new standards espoused by the Supreme Court in Nollan and Dolan. Part III describes the purpose of New York City's 1993. Waterfront Zoning Ordinance and discusses its history, objectives, and provisions. Part …

The Public Safety Exception To Miranda: Analyzing Subjective Motivation, Marc Schuyler Reiner

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues, however, that the appropriate inquiry under Quarles is whether an actual and reasonable belief in an emergency motivated the interrogating officer. This Note proposes a two-prong test to facilitate this inquiry. The subjective motivation prong evaluates the officer's subjective motivation as revealed by objective factors: the. content of the officer's questions, when he asked them, and when the suspect received Miranda warnings. The objective reasonableness prong looks at the objective circumstances to determine the reasonableness of the officer's belief in an emergency.

Part I demonstrates that the Quarles opinion actually contemplates and requires analysis of the officer's …

Chopping Miranda Down To Size, Michael Chertoff

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Confessions, Truth, and the Law by Joseph D. Grano

Reply, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

A Reply to Louis Michael Seidman's Response

Privacy's Problem And The Law Of Criminal Procedure, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this article addresses the connection between privacy-based limits on police authority and substantive limits on government power as a general matter. Part II briefly addresses the effects of that connection on Fourth and Fifth Amendment law, both past and present. Part ID suggests that privacy protection has a deeper problem: it tends to obscure more serious harms that attend police misconduct, harms that flow not from information disclosure but from the police use of force. The upshot is that criminal procedure would be better off with less attention to privacy, at least as privacy is defined in …

On The 'Fruits' Of Miranda Violations, Coerced Confessions, And Compelled Testimony, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Ms. Renee B. Lettow have written a lively, provocative article that will keep many of us who teach constitutional-criminal procedure busy for years to come. They present a reconception of the "first principles" of the Fifth Amendment, and they suggest a dramatic reconstruction of criminal procedure. As a part of that reconstruction, they propose, inter alia, that at a pretrial hearing presided over by a judicial officer, the government should be empowered to compel a suspect, under penalty of contempt, to provide links in the chain of evidence needed to convict him.

Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause, Akhil Reed Amar, Renée B. Lettow

Michigan Law Review

In Part I of this article, we examine the global puzzle of the Self-Incrimination Clause and the local confusion or perversion lurking behind virtually every key word and phrase in the clause as now construed. In Part II we elaborate our reading of the clause and show how it clears up the local problems and solves the overall puzzle.

Reply: Self-Incrimination And The Constitution: A Brief Rejoinder To Professor Kamisar, Akhil Reed Amar, Renée B. Lettow

Michigan Law Review

A Reply to Yale Kamisar's Response to the "Fifth Amendment Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause"

Response: The Problems With Privacy's Problem, Louis Michael Seidman

Michigan Law Review

A Response to William J. Stuntz's "Privacy's Problem and the Law of Criminal Procedure"

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self Incrimination

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Original Understanding Of The Takings Clause And The Political Process, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The original understanding of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was clear on two points. The clause required compensation when the federal government physically took private property, but not when government regulations limited the ways in which property could be used. In 1922, however, the Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon established a new takings regime. In an opinion by Justice Holmes, the Court held that compensation must be provided when government regulation "goes too far" in diminishing the value of private property. Since that decision, the Supreme Court has been unable to define clearly what kind …

Regulatory Takings And Resources: What Are The Constitutional Limits?, John D. Echeverria

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

25 pages.

Searching For Basinwide Solutions To Endangered Species Problems Of The South Platte Of Colorado, James S. Lochhead

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

42 pages (includes illustrations and map).

Contains endnotes.

Mining Regulation(S) And Takings, Lawrence G. Mcbride

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

12 pages.

Contains footnotes.

The Endangered Species Act And Constitutional Takings, Robert Meltz

Regulatory Takings and Resources: What Are the Constitutional Limits? (Summer Conference, June 13-15)

18 pages.

Contains references.