Constitutional Law Commons^™

Why Counting Votes Doesn't Add Up: A Response To Cox And Miles' Judging The Voting Rights Act, Ellen D. Katz, Anna Baldwin

Articles

In Judging the Voting Rights Act, Professors Adam B. Cox and Thomas J. Miles report that judges are more likely to find liability under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) when they are African American, appointed by a Democratic president, or sit on an appellate panel with a judge who is African American or a Democratic appointee. Cox and Miles posit that their findings “contrast” and “cast doubt” on much of the “conventional wisdom” about the Voting Rights Act, by which they mean the core findings we reported in Documenting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2 …

Taking Text Too Seriously: Modern Textualism, Original Meaning, And The Case Of Amar's Bill Of Rights, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Championed on the Supreme Court by Justices Scalia and Thomas and championed in academia most prominently by Professor Akhil Amar, textualism has in the past twenty years emerged as a leading school of constitutional interpretation. Textualists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original public meaning and, in seeking that meaning, they closely parse the Constitution's words and grammar and the placement of clauses in the document. They have assumed that this close parsing recaptures original meaning, but, perhaps because it seems obviously correct, that assumption has neither been defended nor challenged. This article uses Professor …

The Populist Safeguards Of Federalism, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Extant legal scholarship often portrays citizens as the catalysts of federalization. Scholars say that citizens pressure Congress to impose their morals on people living in other states, to trump home-state laws with which they disagree, or to shift the costs of regulatory programs onto out-of-state taxpayers, all to the demise of states' rights. Since Congress (usually) gives citizens what they want, scholars insist the courts must step in to protect states from federal encroachments. By contrast, this Article proposes a new theory of the populist safeguards of federalism. It develops two distinct but mutually reinforcing reasons why populist demands on …

Historical Evolution And Future Of Natural Resources Law And Policy: The Beginning Of An Argument And Some Modest Predictions, Sally K. Fairfax, Helen Ingram, Leigh Raymond

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

8 pages.

Includes bibliographical references

"Sally Fairfax, UC-Berkeley, Helen Ingram, UC-Irvine, and Leigh Raymond, Purdue University" -- Agenda

Marbury In Mexico: Judicial Review’S Precocious Southern Migration, M C. Mirow

Faculty Publications

In attempting to construct United States-style judicial review for the Mexican Supreme Court in the 1880s, Ignacio Vallarta, president of the court, read Marbury in a way that preceded this use of the case in the United States. Using this surprising fact as a central example, this article makes several important contributions to the field of comparative constitutional law. The work demonstrates that through constitutional migration, novel readings of constitutional sources can arise in foreign fora. In an era when the United States Supreme Court may be accused of parochialism in its constitutional analysis, the article addresses the current controversy …

Militating Democracy: Comparative Constitutional Perspectives, Ruti Teitel

Michigan Journal of International Law

Can constitutional review by judges save democracy? This Article identifies and discusses the rise of "militant constitutional democracy" by exploring diverse approaches to the role of constitutional and transnational judicial review in rights protection and the challenges that these approaches present to the workings of democracy, the possibilities of compromise, consensus, and conciliation in political life, and the challenge to other constitutional values as well. "Militant constitutional democracy" ought to be understood as belonging to transitional constitutionalism, associated with periods of political transformation that often demand closer judicial vigilance in the presence of fledgling and often fragile democratic institutions; it …

Due Process Land Use Claims After Lingle, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. that challenges to the validity of land use regulations for failing to advance governmental interests must be brought under the Due Process Clause, rather than the Takings Clause, and must be evaluated under a deferential standard. This Article analyzes and evaluates the probable course of such judicial review, and concludes that federal courts will resist due process review of land use decisions for good reasons but not always with an adequate doctrinal explanation. However, state courts can use due process review to provide state level supervision of local land use …

Original Understanding And The Whether, Why, And How Of Judicial Review, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For more than one hundred years, legal scholars have endlessly and heatedly debated whether judicial review of federal legislation was part of the original understanding of the Constitution. The stakes of the debate are high. If judicial review was part of the original understanding, then there is a strong argument that the practice is grounded in the majority’s will, just as the Founders’ Constitution is. But if it is not—if, as Alexander Bickel and others have claimed, judicial review was a sleight-of-hand creation of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison—then judicial review is either counter-majoritarian or else must …

Process Theory, Majoritarianism, And The Original Understanding, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Radicals in Robes, Cass Sunstein posits that there are four primary approaches to constitutional interpretation: perfectionism, majoritarianism, minimalism, and fundamentalism.' The purpose of his eloquent and compelling book is twofold: Sunstein argues for minimalism, an approach that he contends makes most sense for America today; and with even greater force, Sunstein argues against fundamentalism, which he finds "wrong, dangerous, radical, and occasionally hypocritical."' The "Radicals in Robes" who are the targets of Sunstein's book are judges who embrace fundamentalism, which, in his view, embodies "the views of the extreme wing of [the] Republican Party."'

In Securing Constitutional Democracy: The …

Constitutionalism From The Top Down, Grant Huscroft

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Dialogue theory regards judicial interpretation of the Charter as authoritative, and, as a result, denies that continuing disagreement with the courts is legitimate. There is little scope, in other words, for dialogue with the courts in any meaningful sense. The Charter is best understood as establishing strong-form judicial review rather than weak, and legislatures have only as much room to respond to judicial decisions as the courts are prepared to allow.

Imports Or Made-In-China: Comparison Of Two Constitutional Cases In China And The United States, Xiao Li

LLM Theses and Essays

When its economic increase attracts the global attention, China is also looking for a break-through in its judicial reform. The Qi v. Chen case (2001) was considered to be the Chinese version of Marbury v. Madison and gave rise to a heated discussion of the judicial review power in China. This article will analyze the doubts on the Qi case and the prospects of judicial review it indicates through comparison with Marbury v. Madison. Although Qi v. Chen opened the door for constitutional litigation, its dramatic facts and strained application of the Constitution threw it into question. Nevertheless, its effect …

Charter Dialogue Revisited: Or "Much Ado About Metaphors", Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, Wade K. Wright

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article is a sequel to the 1997 article "The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps The Charter of Rights Isn't Such A Bad Thing After All)." In the present article, the authors review various academic critiques of their "dialogue" theory, which postulates that Charter decisions striking down laws are not the last word, but rather the beginning of a "dialogue," because legislative bodies are generally able to (and generally do) enact sequel legislation that accomplishes the main objective of the unconstitutional law. The authors also examine the Supreme Court of Canada's dicta on the "dialogue" phenomenon, and …

Does The Observer Have An Effect?: An Analysis Of The Use Of The Dialogue Metaphor In Canada's Courts, Richard Haigh, Michael Sobkin

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In "Charter Dialogue Revisited-Or 'Much Ado About Metaphors,"' it is noted that the original idea behind the dialogue metaphor was simply to describe Canada's constitutional structure. Despite this, the metaphor has been criticized for having normative content and influencing courts and legislatures. In this commentary, the authors analyze all Supreme Court of Canada and lower court uses of the dialogue metaphor and conclude that, with some exceptions, the courts have employed the metaphor properly, i.e., descriptively. Since, however, the metaphor can be misapplied-used other than to describe or explain the relationship between the courts and legislatures in Canada-the authors recommend …

The Day The Dialogue Died: A Comment On Sauve V. Canada, Christopher P. Manfredi

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In Sauvé v. Canada (2002) a sharply divided Supreme Court of Canada nullified the inmate disenfranchisement provision of the Canada Elections Act. One of the more important aspects of the majority decision by Chief Justice McLachlin is her refusal to let the concept of dialogue take her down the path of judicial deference. This commentary examines the chief justice's reasons for not taking this path and explores how these reasons reveal the limitations of the dialogue metaphor as originally articulated by Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell. The commentary concludes that any meaningful concept of legislative-judicial dialogue must recognize a coordinate …

Dialogue Theory, Judicial Review, And Judicial Supremacy: A Comment On "Charter Dialogue Revisted", Carissima Mathen

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

By suggesting that we view the judicial-legislative relationship as a dialogue, the authors of "Charter Dialogue" have greatly influenced constitutional debate in Canada. This commentary offers three observations about the authors' latest contribution. First, it queries the continued usefulness of the term "dialogue." Second, it raises concerns with the idea that section 1 of the Charter promotes dialogue, as the term is now explained by the authors. Finally, it queries the authors' perspective on judicial review and their accompanying terminology.

Taking Dialogue Theory Much Too Seriously (Or Perhaps Charter Dialogue Isn't Such A Good Thing After All), Andrew Petter

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article challenges the thesis of Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, and Wade K. Wright (put forth earlier in this issue) that the frequency of legislative responses to Charter decisions striking down laws, which they refer to as "Charter dialogue," provides evidence that Canada has a weaker form of. judicial review than is thought to exist in the United States. This article also critiques their claim that judicial review is justified by the idea that individuals have rights that cannot be taken away by an appeal to the general welfare'. The author maintains that this claim not only …

Sharpening The Dialogue Debate: The Next Decade Of Scholarship, Kent Roach

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

The first part of this commentary examines the roles of coordinate construction in which legislatures act on their own interpretation of the constitution, second look cases in which the courts judge the constitutionality of a legislative reply to a judicial decision, and various constitutional remedies. The second part examines some differences in emphasis between the author's approach to dialogue and that taken by Hogg and his co-authors with respect to the justification of the judicial role in the dialogue, the relation between Charter dialogue and common law constitutionalism, and the proper interpretive approach to section 7 of the Charter. Three …

The Meaning Of “Life”: The Morning-After-Pill, The Question Of When Life Begins, And Judicial Review, Jason M. Horst

ExpressO

The Article foresees that certain state legislation limiting access to the morning-after-pill will thrust the question of when life begins onto the courts. This is due both to fact that the morning-after-pill has the potential to act at a point when the existence of potential life is in dispute and largely a matter of belief and to the fact that the constitutionality of the legislation may depend on whether courts consider the morning-after-pill abortion or contraception.

The Article argues that courts should address the question of whether to consider the morning-after-pill abortion or contraception by attempting to adopt and apply …

Loaded Dice And Other Problems: A Further Reflection On The Statutory Commander In Chief, Christopher H. Schroeder

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Light From The Trees: The Story Of Minors Oposa And The Russian Forest Cases , Oliver Austin Houck

ExpressO

This article describes two lawsuits in the late twentieth century that changed their countries in ways from which there will be no return. One took place in the Philippines, emerging from the reign of Fernando Marcos, and the other in Russia, following a near century of communist rule. They have two things in common. They declared the rights of their citizens to challenge, and reverse, government decisions. And they were about the environment, more particularly, trees. What we learn is that notions of environmental protection, citizen enforcement and judicial review have traveled the world and that, in differing legal systems, …

When Worlds Collide: Federal Construction Of State Institutional Competence, Marcia L. Mccormick

ExpressO

The federal courts routinely encounter issues of state law. Often a state court will have already analyzed the law at issue, either in a separate case or in the very situation before the federal court. In every one of those cases, the federal courts must decide whether to defer to the state court analysis and, if so, how much. The federal courts will often defer, but many times have not done so, and they rarely explain the reasons for the departures they make. While this lack of transparency gives the federal courts the greatest amount of discretion and power, it …

Popular Sovereignty, Judicial Supremacy, And The American Revolution: Why The Judiciary Cannot Be The Final Arbiter Of Constitutions, William J. Watkins

ExpressO

Key to understanding the connection between popular sovereignty and judicial review is the historical development of the theory of sovereignty in England and America. Section One of this article traces the defeat of divine right theory in England and the emergence of parliamentary sovereignty. Section Two considers the American colonists’ rejection of parliamentary sovereignty during the Revolution and their establishment of popular sovereignty as the cardinal principle of American constitutionalism. Section Three studies English precedent often cited as providing the basis for the American doctrine of judicial review and shows that these English cases were simply exercises in statutory construction …

Brief Of Law Professors David D. Cole Et Al. As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner (Geneva-Enforceability), Hamdan V. Rumsfield, No. 05-184 (U.S. Jan. 6, 2006), David Cole, Julie R. O'Sullivan, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

From The Countermajoritarian Difficulty To Juristocracy And The Political Construction Of Judicial Power, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Does It Really Matter? Conservative Courts In A Conservative Era, Mark A. Graber

Faculty Scholarship

This essay explores the likelihood that conservative federal courts in the near future will be agents of conservative social change. In particular, the paper assesses whether conservative justices on some issues will support more conservative policies than conservative elected officials are presently willing to enact and whether such judicial decisions will influence public policy. My primary conclusion is that, as long as conservatives remain politically ascendant in the elected branches of government, the Roberts Court is likely to influence American politics at the margins. The new conservative judicial majority is likely to be more libertarian than conservative majorities in the …

"The Most Extraordinarily Powerful Court Of Law The World Has Ever Known"? Judicial Review In The United States And Germany, Peter E. Quint

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Distinguishing Formal From Institutional Democracy, Paul Frymer

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Juristocracy In The Trenches: Problem-Solving Judges And Therapeutic Jurisprudence In Drug Treatment Courts And Unified Family Courts, Richard Boldt, Jana Singer

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Delegation To Courts And Legitimacy, Karol Soltan

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Assessing Juristocracy: Are Judges Rulers Or Agents?, George I. Lovell, Scott E. Lemieux

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.