Jurisprudence Commons^™

Panel 1: Perspectives On Transactions In Comic Books, David Gallaher, Larry Hama, Lillian Laserson, Matthew Tynan, Thomas Crowell

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Panel 2: Comic Book Jurisprudence With Q&A, Karen Berger, Lillian Laserson, Paul Levitz, Robert Sikoryak, Brett Frischmann

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

James Dewitt Andrews: Classifying The Law In The Early Twentieth Century*, Richard A. Danner

Faculty Scholarship

This paper examines the efforts of New York lawyer James DeWitt Andrews and others to create a new classification system for American law in the early years of the twentieth century. Inspired by fragments left by founding father James Wilson, Andrews worked though the American Bar Association and organized independent projects to classify the law. A controversial figure, whose motives were often questioned, Andrews engaged the support and at times the antagonism of prominent legal figures such as John H. Wigmore, Roscoe Pound, and William Howard Taft before his plans ended with the founding of the American Law Institute in …

Triangulating Public Meaning: Corpus Linguistics, Immersion, And The Constitutional Record, Lawrence B. Solum

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay contributes to the development of an originalist methodology by making the case for an approach that employs three distinct methods, each of which serves as a basis for confirming or questioning the results reached by the other two. This approach will be called the Method of Triangulation. The three component techniques are as follows:

(1) The Method of Corpus Linguistics: The method of corpus linguistics employs large-scale data sets (corpora) that provide evidence of linguistic practice.

(2) The Originalist Method of Immersion: The method of immersion requires researchers to immerse themselves in the linguistic and conceptual world of …

Historical Gloss, Constitutional Conventions, And The Judicial Separation Of Powers, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Scholars have increasingly focused on the relevance of post-Founding historical practice to discern the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch, and the Supreme Court has recently endorsed the relevance of such practice. Much less attention has been paid, however, to the relevance of historical practice to discerning the separation of powers between the political branches and the federal judiciary—what this Article calls the “judicial separation of powers.” As the Article explains, there are two ways that historical practice might be relevant to the judicial separation of powers. First, such practice might be invoked as an appeal to …

Where's The Fire?, Burt Neuborne

Journal of Law and Policy

Freedom of speech is priceless, but distressingly fragile. Life, and law, would be much simpler if we could react to free speech's importance and fragility by granting it absolute legal protection. Since, however, absolute protection of speech is not—and should not be—a serious option, we face the legal realist challenge of erecting a First Amendment legal structure capable of providing real-world protection to highly controversial speech, often by weak speakers, without closing the door to government regulation. Given the uncertainty inherent in applying fact-dependent complex rules in protean factual settings, many potential speakers would avoid being drawn into unpredictable and …

Protecting Hatred Preserves Freedom: Why Offensive Expressions Command Constitutional Protection, Andrew P. Napolitano

Journal of Law and Policy

The First Amendment is not the guardian of taste. Instead, the U.S. Constitution wholeheartedly protects freedom of thought and expression, even if generated and defined by hatred, as long as that expression does not produce immediate lawless violence. Although free speech may lead to tenuous relationships or uncomfortable debates, it must be defended unconditionally. Too many politicians and lawmakers believe that the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment attaches only to those ideas and expressions that they approve of; this is not so. This article argues that the Founders intended the First Amendment's free speech principle as a …

Freedom Of Speech And Equality: Do We Have To Choose?, Nadine Strossen

Journal of Law and Policy

As a lifelong activist on behalf of both equality and free speech, I am convinced, based on actual experience, that these core values are mutually reinforcing, and not, as some have argued, in tension with each other. Moreover, I am convinced that this is true even for offensive or hateful speech that affronts our most cherished beliefs. However, defining hateful or offensive speech is inherently arbitrary and subjective, which raises concerns about what speech should be restricted, and how. Empowering government to punish hateful or offensive expresson necessarily vests officials with enormous discretionary power, which will inevitably lead to arbitrary …

The Academy, Campaign Finance, And Free Speech Under Fire, Bradley A. Smith

Journal of Law and Policy

This article discusses the issue of campaign finance and the impact money has on the political process in the country. The author suggests campaign finance regulations that curb the current threat it poses to the system, as well as the First Amendment itself. Lastly, the author discusses the impact academics have had on the debate and this decline in support of free speech that has resulted from the debate.

Producing Democratic Vibrancy, K. Sabeel Rahman

Journal of Law and Policy

Professor Rahman gives his thoughts and opinions on the impact of Citizens' United v. FEC and the growth of the First Amendment debate since. The comment analyzes the normative udnerstanding of democracy and the ongoing debate campaifgn finance have. Professor Rahman concludes by suggesting that the debate is wrongly focused on the indivudals being consumers of politcal speech rather than the producers of it.

A Balancing Act For American Universities: Anti-Harassment Policy V. Freedom Of Speech, Bridget Hart

Journal of Law and Policy

Legal scholars, educational administrators, journalists, and students have all witnessed a rise in students being disciplined by university officials for speech and conduct deemed inappropriate for college campuses. In endeavoring to explain this trend, some academics point to the disconnect between the Department of Education and university administrators regarding the legal standards for campus anti-harassment policies. The lack of clarity regarding what constitutes harassment on college campuses has resulted in the punishment of students by universities for speech and conduct that is normally considered to be protected speech under the First Amendment. This note first provides an overview of the …

State-Action Immunity And Section 5 Of The Ftc Act, Daniel A. Crane, Adam Hester

Michigan Law Review

The state-action immunity doctrine of Parker v. Brown immunizes anticompetitive state regulations from preemption by federal antitrust law so long as the state takes conspicuous ownership of its anticompetitive policy. In its 1943 Parker decision, the Supreme Court justified this doctrine, observing that no evidence of a congressional will to preempt state law appears in the Sherman Act’s legislative history or context. In addition, commentators generally assume that the New Deal court was anxious to avoid re-entangling the federal judiciary in Lochner-style substantive due process analysis. The Supreme Court has observed, without deciding, that the Federal Trade Commission might …

The Distinctive Role Of Justice Samuel Alito: From A Politics Of Restoration To A Politics Of Dissent, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Justice Samuel Alito is regarded by both his champions and his critics as the most consistently conservative member of the current Supreme Court. Both groups seem to agree that he has become the most important conservative voice on the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts has a Court to lead; Justice Antonin Scalia and his particular brand of originalism have passed on; Justice Clarence Thomas is a stricter originalist and so writes opinions that other Justices do not join; and Justice Anthony Kennedy can be ideologically unreliable. Justice Alito, by contrast, is unburdened by the perceived responsibilities of being Chief Justice, …

Cultural Democracy And The First Amendment, Jack M. Balkin

Northwestern University Law Review

Freedom of speech secures cultural democracy as well as political democracy. Just as it is important to make state power accountable to citizens, it is also important to give people a say over the development of forms of cultural power that transcend the state. In a free society, people should have the right to participate in the forms of meaning-making that shape who they are and that help constitute them as individuals.

The digital age shows the advantages of a cultural theory over purely democracy-based theories. First, the cultural account offers a more convincing explanation of why expression that seems …

Multifactoral Free Speech, Alexander Tsesis

Northwestern University Law Review

This Article presents a multifactoral approach to free speech analysis. Difficult cases present a variety of challenges that require judges to weigh concerns for the protection of robust dialogue, especially about public issues, against concerns that sound in common law (such as reputation), statutory law (such as repose against harassment), and in constitutional law (such as copyright). Even when speech is implicated, the Court should aim to resolve other relevant individual and social issues arising from litigation. Focusing only on free speech categories is likely to discount substantial, and sometimes compelling, social concerns warranting reflection, analysis, and application. Examining the …

The Mixed Courts Of Egypt: A Study On The Use Of Natural Law And Equity, Gabriel M. Wilner

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Scrivener’S Error, Ryan D. Doerfler

Northwestern University Law Review

It is widely accepted that courts may correct legislative drafting mistakes, i.e., so-called scrivener’s errors, if and only if such mistakes are “absolutely clear.” The rationale is that if a court were to recognize a less clear error, it might be “rewriting” the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.

This Article argues that the standard is much too strict. The current rationale ignores that courts can “rewrite,” i.e., misinterpret, a statute both by recognizing an error and by failing to do so. Accordingly, because the current doctrine is designed to protect against one type of mistake (false positives) but …

The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Scott-Mclaughlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Fred Brewington

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dismantling Democracy: Common Sense And The Contract Jurisprudence Of Frank Easterbrook, Deborah Post

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Heller, Mcdonald, And Murder: Testing The More Guns = More Murder Thesis, Don B. Kates, Carlisle Moody

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Why Can't We Be Like France? How The Right To Bear Arms Got Left Out Of The Declaration Of Rights And How Gun Registration Was Decreed Just In Time For The Nazi Occupation, Stephen P. Halbrook

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Gun Control And The Second Amendment: Developments And Controversies In The Wake Of District Of Columbia V. Heller And Mcdonald V. Chicago, Harris Fischman

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The (New) New Judicial Federalism: State Constitutions And The Protection Of The Individual Right To Bear Arms, Michael B. De Leeuw

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Right To Carry Firearms Outside Of The Home: Separating Historical Myths From Historical Realities, Saul Cornell

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Second Amendment In Historiographical Crisis: Why The Supreme Court Must Reevaluate The Embarrassing “Standard Model” Moving Forward, Patrick J. Charles

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Science Of Sociological Jurisprudence As A Methodology For Legal Analysis, Richard Langone

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconceptualizing The Eighth Amendment: Slaves, Prisoners, And Cruel And Unusual Punishment, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

The meaning of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause has long been hotly contested. For scholars and jurists who look to original meaning or intent, there is little direct contemporaneous evidence on which to rest any conclusion. For those who adopt a dynamic interpretive framework, the Supreme Court’s “evolving standards of decency” paradigm has surface appeal, but deep conflicts have arisen in application. This Article offers a contextual account of the Eighth Amendment’s meaning that addresses both of these interpretive frames by situating the Amendment in eighteenth and nineteenth-century legal standards governing relationships of subordination.

In particular, I …