Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (93)
- Judges (62)
- Legislation (31)
- Criminal Law (28)
- Jurisprudence (27)
-
- Litigation (24)
- Supreme Court of the United States (21)
- International Law (15)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (15)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (12)
- Legal History (12)
- Criminal Procedure (11)
- Law and Politics (11)
- State and Local Government Law (10)
- Evidence (7)
- Law and Society (7)
- Torts (7)
- Administrative Law (6)
- Civil Procedure (6)
- Immigration Law (6)
- Law and Economics (6)
- Political Science (6)
- National Security Law (5)
- Sociology (5)
- Fourth Amendment (4)
- Health Law and Policy (4)
- Human Rights Law (4)
- Intellectual Property Law (4)
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (87)
- Statistics (28)
- Judicial review (17)
- Congress (13)
- Separation of powers (12)
-
- Annual report (10)
- Federal courts (10)
- Jurisprudence (9)
- Civil rights (7)
- Constitutional law (7)
- Courts (7)
- Originalism (7)
- Constitution (6)
- Due process (6)
- Litigation (6)
- Military courts (6)
- Statutory interpretation (6)
- Supremacy Clause (6)
- Treaties (6)
- Class actions (5)
- Commerce Clause (5)
- Federalism (5)
- Textualism (5)
- Eleventh Amendment (4)
- Executive power (4)
- Judges (4)
- Remedies (4)
- etc. (3)
- ADA (3)
- Affirmative action (3)
- Publication Year
Articles 211 - 217 of 217
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Taking The Framers Seriously, William Michael Treanor
Taking The Framers Seriously, William Michael Treanor
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This article reviews Taking the Constitution Seriously by Walter Berns (1987).
This review focuses on three of the key historical points that Walter Berns makes: his arguments that the Declaration of Independence is a Lockean document; that the Constitution encapsulates the political philosophy of the Declaration; and that the framers viewed the commercialization of society as a salutary development and were unambivalent champions of the right to property. Examination of these issues suggests that the ideological universe of the framers was far more complex than Berns indicates. While the revolutionary era witnessed a new concern with individual rights and a …
Baby M And The Cassandra Problem, Girardeau A. Spann
Baby M And The Cassandra Problem, Girardeau A. Spann
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Part I of this essay outlines the facts of the Baby M case and traces the reasoning the New Jersey Supreme Court used to justify the legal conclusions that it reached.
Part II then identifies the three common analytical techniques or modes of argument on which the state supreme court relied in conducting its analysis and suggests that each is itself too dependent upon unprincipled policy preferences to have excluded such preferences from the decisionmaking process.
Finally, Part III suggests that no matter how strong an argument one might offer to demonstrate the systemic vulnerability of principle to preference, the …
Expository Justice, Girardeau A. Spann
Expository Justice, Girardeau A. Spann
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The task of the federal judiciary is seriously complicated by the fact that it has to play one role while pretending to play another. We ask the courts to pretend that they are resolving disputes between parties, but what we really want them to do is tell us how to conform our behavior to our fundamental values. Society needs a branch of government to implement its fundamental values, and the federal judiciary is well suited to that task because it possesses the precise balance of autonomy and public accountability needed to perform the function properly.
However, the dispute resolution charade …
Review Of The New Deal Lawyers, By Peter H. Irons, William Michael Treanor
Review Of The New Deal Lawyers, By Peter H. Irons, William Michael Treanor
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This article reviews The New Deal Lawyers by Peter H. Irons (1982).
The government lawyers who helped shape and defend New Deal agencies have received little attention from scholars. Any oversight has now, however, been redressed. The New Deal Lawyers provides a detailed and careful study of the litigation process that preceded the New Deal's 1937 court triumphs. Peter Irons' book focuses on the activities of three key agencies and their general counsels: the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and Donald Richberg; the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) and Jerome Frank; and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Charles Fahy. Each …
The Second Circuit Review--1975-76 Term: Courts-- Evidence & Procedure: Commentary: The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein
The Second Circuit Review--1975-76 Term: Courts-- Evidence & Procedure: Commentary: The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The most significant development in federal trial procedure in recent years has been the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1975. In the intervening two years since the Rules became effective, the courts of the Second Circuit have bad occasion to make several illuminating applications of and references to them.
An examination of some of these decisions provides insight into the kinds of questions that are coming up not only in the Second Circuit, but around the country, and the kinds of answers that are being given. It is not the bizarre or unusual case that …
The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein
The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The most significant development in federal trial procedure in recent years has been the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1975. In the intervening two years since the Rules became effective, the courts of the Second Circuit have bad occasion to make several illuminating applications of and references to them.
An examination of some of these decisions provides insight into the kinds of questions that are coming up not only in the Second Circuit, but around the country, and the kinds of answers that are being given. It is not the bizarre or unusual case that …
The Proposed Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein
The Proposed Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The Supreme Court has approved a uniform code of evidence for all federal courts. Amendments to the Supreme Court's rules are now pending in the House of Representatives. From the point of view of a specialist in the law of evidence, Professor Rothstein analyzes the differences between the Supreme Court's proposals and the House amendments and suggests solutions to these conflicts.