Constitutional Law Commons^™

Steinhoff And Self-Defense, Michael S. Moore

San Diego Law Review

I shall first describe what moral combat would be if it existed, separate it into distinct species, and say why it is so undesirable that one should be brought to acknowledge its existence only reluctantly and as a last resort. I will then detail two ways in which rights to do things—often called “action rights” or “active rights”—such as the right to defend oneself, are integrated into standard deontic logic: (1) Hohfeld’s way and (2) the older but still popular Kantian alternative that Hurd and I recently defended. The first of these is compatible with—indeed, inviting of—moral combat, whereas the …

The Nature Of Self-Defense, Samuel C. Rickless

San Diego Law Review

What is self-defense? Most theorists of self-defense are mainly interested in explaining why and when we are morally justified in defending ourselves from a threat posed by another. The moral questions here are important, not just because self-defense represents an interesting moral conundrum, but because morality, at least in this case, is, or should be, a reliable guide to the law. So theorists of self-defense often start with paradigm cases—the culpable aggressor, the justified aggressor, the innocent aggressor, the innocent threat, and so on—and try to explain moral intuitions about them with the help of moral theory, whether Hohfeldian, utilitarian, …

Self-Defense, Necessity, And The Duty To Compensate, In Law And Morality, Kenneth W. Simons

San Diego Law Review

What is the proper scope of the right to self-defense in law and morality? How does this right compare to the privilege of necessity? Professor Uwe Steinhoff’s manuscript offers a distinctive and wide-ranging perspective on the controversial questions these privileges raise. This essay engages with a number of his arguments, particularly focusing on legal and moral duties of compensation.

First, this essay examines how Anglo-American tort law would likely address the defender’s liability in a variety of scenarios, including disproportionate, excessive, and unnecessary force; unreasonable and reasonable mistakes; and use of force against innocent aggressors. It next considers whether private …

The Right To Cause Harm As An Alternative To Being Sacrificed For Others: An Exploration Of Agent-Rights With A Special Focus On Intervening Agency, Alec Walen

San Diego Law Review

My strategy for defending the right of non-sacrifice and the connected agent–patient inference is to move through a series of cases, starting with easy cases—clearly permissible acts of non-sacrifice—and moving to more controversial ones. The controversial cases are those in which intervening agency is central to explaining why an agent should have the right of non-sacrifice. My argument will not simply be an attempt to explain intuitions. I take the intuitions on the easy cases to be reliable, but once we move to controversial cases, I think moral intuitions become unreliable. My argument fundamentally trades on two thoughts: (1) there …

September 11, 2018: 9/11 R.I.P., Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “9/11 R.I.P.“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

September 9, 2018: Happy New Year, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Happy New Year“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Brennan And Brewbaker's Christian Legal Thought: Providing The Foundations For Establishment Clause Understanding, Angela C. Carmella

Journal of Catholic Legal Studies

(Excerpt)

Under this approach—which clearly prioritizes the protection of religious exercise as well as the religious messages of cultural and political institutions—it appears that the Establishment Clause plays little or no role independent of the Free Exercise Clause. My question, then, is whether Christian legal thought compels us, or at least supports, such a reading of the Establishment Clause. In other words, does this lack of concern for non-establishment norms inhere in Christian legal and political thought? I look to Patrick Brennan and William Brewbaker’s casebook—Christian Legal Thought: Materials and Cases (“CLT”) —in search of a framework for exploration. …

Liberty And Separation Of Powers In Judicial Review Of Privatized Governance Regimes, Jeffrey Kleeger

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This article examines the power difference between homeowner association (HOA) owners, members, and their governing boards. Administrative adjudication can remedy the imbalance to better secure member rights. What is necessary is a heightened standard of judicial review and a requirement to produce a comprehensive record for review. Boards enjoy an advantage in disputes with members—courts uphold board actions unless they are arbitrary and capricious. Boards also possess largely unrestricted state-delegated authority to make and enforce rules, as well as decide penalties for infractions. These clearly governmental functions are not restrained by the state action doctrine. Tools of administrative adjudication are …

The Death Of Judicial Independence In Turkey: A Lesson For Others, Edwin L. Felter Jr., Oyku Didem Aydin

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Administrative Constitutionalism And The Unity Of Public Law, Matthew Lewans

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Public law scholarship in the common law tradition often aims at elucidating a connection between law and constitutional values like equality, due process, and the rule of law. However, in their quest to reveal the morality of public law, common lawyers often focus their attention on judicial interpretations of constitutional values to the exclusion of other sources of constitutional jurisprudence. The author argues that the traditional fascination with courts as the primary or exclusive arbiters of constitutional values should be tempered and supplemented by recognizing the valuable contributions of administrative officials who interpret and enforce constitutional norms when exercising statutorily …

Judge Kavanaugh, Chevron Deference, And The Supreme Court, Kent H. Barnett, Christina L. Boyd, Christopher J. Walker

Popular Media

How might a new U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh review federal agency statutory interpretations that come before him on the Court?

To find at least a preliminary answer, we can look to his judicial behavior while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—and there is plenty of relevant Kavanaugh judicial behavior to observe. Since starting his service on the D.C. Circuit in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh has participated in the disposition of around 2,700 cases and has authored more than 300 opinions. Over a third of those authored opinions involved administrative law.

September 2, 2018: When Does Disagreement On Climate Become Dishonesty?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “ When Does Disagreement on Climate Become Dishonesty?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Private Law, Fundamental Rights, And The Rule Of Law, Hugh Collins

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gamble V. U.S.: Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Stuart Banner, Paul Cassell

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

In this case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, petitioner Gamble's brief demonstrates that there was no dual sovereignty doctrine before the mid-19th century. At the Founding and for several decades thereafter, a prosecution by one sovereign was understood to bar a subsequent prosecution by all other sovereigns. Dual sovereignty is thus contrary to the original meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendants today enjoy a weaker form of double jeopardy protection than they did when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

But that fact only raises three further questions. First why did the Court erroneously conclude in Bartkus v. …

The Well’S Run Dry: Considering Water As A Fundamental Right Using An Interdisciplinary Approach, Matthew J. Mckissick

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Co-Parenting War Powers: Congress's Authority To Escalate Conflicts, Russell A. Spivak

West Virginia Law Review

This article argues that Congress has the ability to force a President to escalate military intervention when he is otherwise unwilling to do so. The article begins by exploring the constitutional powers at Congress's disposal-the Declare War Clause, the Taxing and Spending Clause, and the Commander-in-Chief Clause-and their historical application. It then establishes that, under Justice Jackson's Youngstown framework, the Executive would be acting in Category Three, meaning that the President may "rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter." Citing multiple Article I clauses, this article argues that Executive action in …

Book Review: 51 Imperfect Solutions: States And The Making Of American Constitutional Law, By Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Steven H. Steinglass

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

The Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, has written an excellent book on the importance of state constitutions as bulwarks against state abuse and the source of protections of individual rights. The book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law, argues that individual rights are more secure when both federal and state constitutional protections are strong. And our system of federalism and the quality of state and federal judicial decisions are improved when there are state constitutional safeguards.

Justiciability, Federalism, And The Administrative State, Zachary D. Clopton

Cornell Law Review

Article III provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to certain justiciable cases and controversies. So if a plaintiff bringing a federal claim lacks constitutional standing or her dispute is moot under Article III, then a federal court should dismiss. But this dismissal need not end the story. This Article suggests a simple, forward-looking reading of case-or-controversy dismissals: they should be understood as invitations to legislators to consider other pathways for adjudication. A case dismissed for lack of standing, for mootness, or for requesting an advisory opinion might be a candidate for resolution in a state court …

Don't Take Me Out To That Ballpark: State Action, Government Speech, And Chief Wahoo After Matal, Robert H. Hendricks

Cornell Law Review

Close your eyes and imagine yourself driving to a concert. On the way, you pass a car bearing a license plate with the image of a Confederate flag. You pause, and ask . . . Did the state approve that license plate? Does the state endorse the use of the Confederate flag? You keep driving. Eventually you reach the concert and walk in. To your surprise, an Asian- American band named “The Slants” is opening. You pause, and ask . . . I thought the government approves trademarks? Does the Patent and Trademark Office endorse derogatory slurs? These questions strike …

Sex Offender Civil Commitment To Prison Post-Kingsley, Arielle W. Tolman

Northwestern University Law Review

Today, an estimated 5400 people are civilly committed under state and federal sex offender programs. This Note surveys these civil commitment regimes and finds that seventeen jurisdictions (sixteen states and the federal government) have enacted legislative schemes that authorize the indefinite civil detention of people charged with, or previously convicted of, sex offenses to prisons or prison-like facilities—often for their entire lives. By charting the pervasiveness of sex offender civil commitment to prison, this Note provides new evidence that these sex offender civil commitment statutes are, in fact, punitive and, therefore, unconstitutional. Moreover, this Note argues that the Supreme Court’s …