Constitutional Law Commons^™

Does The Supreme Court Still Matter?, Timothy B. Dyk

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Born In The U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship In The Wake Of 9/11, John C. Eastman

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Standing At The Crossroads: The Roberts Court In Historical Perspective, Maxwell L. Stearns

Faculty Scholarship

After eleven years, the longest period in Supreme Court history with no change in membership, the Roberts Court commenced in the year 2005 with two new justices. John Roberts replaced William Rehnquist as the seventeenth Chief Justice and Samuel Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor as Associate Justice. The conventional wisdom suggests that on the nine-justice Supreme Court, these two appointments have produced a single-increment move, ideologically, to the right. The two Chief Justices occupy roughly the same ideological position. In contrast, whereas O’Connor was generally viewed as occupying the Court’s centrist, or median, position, Alito has instead continued to embrace …

Parents Involved And The Meaning Of Brown: An Old Debate Renewed, Jonathon L. Entin

Seattle University Law Review

This Article examines some of the jurisprudential roots of the racial discrimination debate, tracing the issue back to Brown and its immediate aftermath but finding the seeds of the disagreement in the ambiguities of the first Justice Harlan's celebrated dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson. The tensions between the two approaches did not matter in Plessy because segregation was impermissible under either theory, but the two approaches pointed in opposite directions in Parents Involved. Part II offers an overview of the Seattle and Louisville policies that were struck down in Parents Involved. Part III examines the various …

Self-Execution And Treaty Duality, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States, treaties made by the United States are part of the "supreme Law of the Land." At least since the Supreme Court's 1829 decision in Foster v. Neilson, however, it has been understood that treaty provisions are enforceable in U.S. courts only if they are "self-executing." The legitimacy and implications of this self-execution requirement have generated substantial controversy and uncertainty among both courts and commentators. This Article attempts to clear up some of the conceptual confusion relating to the self-execution doctrine and, …

New Legal Rights In The Legal System Of The United States Of America, Roberto Rosas, Bill Piatt

Faculty Articles

Currently, there exist an extensive variety of individual rights recognized both nationally and internationally. With the course of time, however, they change; therefore, governments occasionally consider it necessary to create additional protections for their citizens. Generally, these propositions are made possible through the creation and approval of new rights. Even though these new rights are based on other previously established rights, they do offer society the opportunity to protect and defend itself as well as allowing it to continue making progress.

Only a few of the new legal rights that have been recognized within the last few years will be …

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Independent Of The Constitution?--Issues Raised By An Independent Federal Legislative Ethics Commission With Independent Enforcement Authority, Paul Taylor

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Analysis Of Death Penalty Decisions From The October 2006 Supreme Court Term (Nineteenth Annual Supreme Court Review, October 2006 Supreme Court Term), Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem Article And Essay, Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Gun control in the United States generally has meant some type of supply regulation. Supply restrictions ranging from one-gun-a-month schemes to flat gun bans cannot work without a willingness and ability to reduce total inventory to levels approaching zero ("the supply-side ideal"). This is an impossible feat in a country that already has 300 million guns tightly held by people who think they are uniquely important tools. The average defiance ratio in places that have attempted gun confiscation and registration is 2.6 illegal guns for every legal one. In many countries defiance is far higher. None of those countries has …

Constitutional Law And Values - Version '08 (Not Necessarily And Upgrade), Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Dole’S Future: A Strategic Analysis, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

As the U.S. Supreme Court imposes federalism-based limits on congressional power under the Commerce Clause and Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may be tempted to turn to the conditional spending power in order to achieve goals that it may not accomplish directly. In this article, I address whether a danger exists, as some suggest, that such use of the Spending Clause would render the Court more likely to cut back on its scope, narrowing or overruling South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). Using doctrinal analysis and game theory, I conclude that Congress should proceed with …

Remarks Of Gillian E. Metzger, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Thanks for having me, I'm glad to be here. I'm going to take for granted the principle that candor and transparency in judicial reasoning is a very good thing. The process of judicial decision making is a process of giving reasoned explanations, of holding up reasons and arguments for refutation. Whether adjudication turns mainly on such reason giving or instead on judicial policy preferences is of course a matter of some dispute, but I think it is relatively noncontentious to say that reason giving is both an important constituent of, and an important constraint on, the process of adjudication – …

The Conservative Case For Precedent, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay offers some reasons why conservatives should favor giving great weight to precedent in constitutional adjudication. Let me start with some preliminary observations about the debate between originalism and precedent more generally.

First, the debate has been dominated to far too great an extent by specific cases, Roe v. Wade in particular. It is distressing that the only issue that has seemed to matter in recent confirmation hearings is what a nominee thinks about Roe v. Wade. Similarly, in the precedent versus originalism debate, much of the discussion – even in the law reviews – is animated by …

Solving The Parents Involved Paradox, Lino A. Graglia

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (Parents Involved) presents the seeming paradox that the Constitution can on one day require a school district to take drastic measures, including busing students across a giant school district to increase racial integration in schools, and then prohibit school districts from taking even the mildest measures, such as using race as a tie-breaker in making student assignments, on the next. How, a rational observer must wonder, can this be possible? The answer is that, as usual in the making of “constitutional law,” the Constitution …

Pro-Gun Scholars Twist Constitution, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia became the first federal tribunal to strike down a local gun-control law, holding that the Founding Fathers would have allowed all private citizens to arm themselves.

October 19, 2007: World Magazine Interview With Bruce Ledewitz, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

World Magazine interview with Bruce Ledewitz

Umpires At Bat: On Integration And Legitimation, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

During his confirmation hearings. Chief Justice Roberts captured the public's imagination when he offered an interpretation of the role that judges play in our society when interpreting the Constitution. Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around, he said. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see an umpire.

In this inquiry, I identify some tensions between the …

Rule Of Law Conference: Global Issues And The Rule Of Law, Lord Chief Justice Nicholas Phillips Of Worth Matravers

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Looking Backward: Richard Epstein Ponders The “Progressive” Peril, Michael Allan Wolf

UF Law Faculty Publications

In "How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution," Richard Epstein bemoans the growth of a dominant big government. How Progressives should receive a warm reception from the audience, lawyers and laypeople alike, who view the New Deal as a mistake of epic proportions. For the rest of us, significant gaps will still remain between, on the one hand, our understanding of the nation’s past and of the complex nature of constitutional lawmaking and, on the other, Epstein’s version of the nature of twentieth-century reform and Progressive jurisprudence.

After 150 Years, Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever Continues To Haunt, F. Michael Higginbotham

All Faculty Scholarship

In 1857, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, declaring that it had no jurisdiction to hear Dred Scott's claim to freedom because he was black and, therefore, not a citizen of the United States. This article argues that not only was the decision morally reprehensible, it was also based on an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution.

Reading, Writing, And Race: The Constitutionality Of Educational Strategies Designed To Teach Racial Literacy, Michael J. Kaufman

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silenced Citizens: The Post-Garcetti Landscape For Public Sector Employees Working In National Security, Jamie Sasser

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Preemption Proponents Are Wrong, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The basic idea of federal preemption is easily stated: It is a constitutionally mandated principle that demands that federal law trumps state law when the two conflict or in the rare instances when a federal law is so comprehensive that there’s no role left for state law to fill. But in practice, courts have often had difficulty applying the principle.

For plaintiff lawyers, preemption is an ever-present worry. When your client has been injured by a defective car, truck, medical device, boat, tobacco product, pesticide, or mislabeled drug, or has been victimized by a bank or other lending institution, the …

Gender And Justice: Parity And The United States Supreme Court, Paula A. Monopoli

Faculty Scholarship

There is a deep concern among many American women that only one woman remains on the United States Supreme Court. When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was sworn in on September 25, 1981, most people never imagined that twenty-five years later there would still be only one woman on the Court. It appears that it will be many more years before there is a critical mass of women sitting on the high court. Given its central role, the Court should better represent the gender balance in American society. In a number of other countries, voluntary or involuntary parity provisions have been …

The Third Death Of Federalism, A. Christopher Bryant

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Federal drug laws proved a stumbling block to the Rehnquist Court's attempted federalism revival. In its final year, the Court's fragile federalism coalition splintered in a pair of cases arising under the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"). Missing from the emerging legal literature concerning those two decisions is any substantive discussion of the Supreme Court's much earlier, ill-fated efforts to preserve both judicial enforcement of the enumerated powers doctrine and federal narcotics laws. This article fills that gap.

Ninety-odd years ago the Court arrived at the same jurisprudential juncture it now confronts. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the …

The Federal Judicial Power And The International Legal Order, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Is Capital Punishment Unconstitutional? And Even If We Think It Is, Should We Want The Supreme Court To So Rule?, Michael J. Perry

Georgia Law Review

Given that the Supreme Court of the United States, in protecting constitutionally entrenched human rights, exercises the power of judicial ultimacy, should the Court exercise the power deferentially? That is, should the Court defer to some degree to the judgment of the members of the legislative and/or executive branches of government whose law or policy is in question and who presumably have concluded that the law or policy does not violate any human right?

The choice here is best understood as a choice between two different judicial attitudes or orientations. For a judge to adopt a deferential attitude-for her to …

Death Penalty And Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

An Empirical Analysis Of The Confirmation Hearings Of The Justices Of The Rehnquist Natural Court, Jason J. Czarnezki

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Despite the importance of this question, surprisingly little work has been done comparing the statements made by nominees at their confirmation hearings with their subsequent behavior on the Supreme Court. If the hearings reveal substantively valuable information about nominees' views, then we would expect to find a relationship between the Justices' statements and their judicial decisions. This Article is an initial look at that relationship. Specifically, we examine statements involving the nominees' views on stare decisis, originalism and legislative history, and also statements involving their views on the rights of criminal defendants. We then rank order the nominees' confirmation hearings …