Constitutional Law Commons^™

When The Police Get The Law Wrong: How Heien V. North Carolina Further Erodes The Fourth Amendment, Vivan M. Rivera

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Ventriloquism: People V. Tom And The Substantive Use Of Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence To Infer Consciousness Of Guilt, Joshua Bornstein

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

It’S Complicated: The Unusual Way Obergefell V. Hodges Legalized Same Sex Marriage, Kristin Haule

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Multifactoral Free Speech, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

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 Declaration Of Independence And Constitutional Interpretation, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article argues that the Reconstruction Amendments incorporated the human dignity values of the Declaration of Independence. The original Constitution contained clauses, which protected the institution of slavery, that were irreconcilable with the normative commitments the nation had undertaken at independence. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments set the country aright by formally incorporating the Declaration of Independence's principles for representative governance into the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence provides valuable insights into matters of human dignity, privacy, and self-government. Its statements about human rights, equality, and popular sovereignty establish a foundational rule of interpretation. While the Supreme Court has …

Balancing Free Speech, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This article develops a theory for balancing free speech against other express and implied constitutional, statutory, and doctrinal values. It posits that free speech considerations should be connected to the underlying purpose of constitutional governance. When deciding difficult cases involving competing rights, judges should examine (1) whether unencumbered expression is likely to cause constitutional, statutory, or common law harms; (2) whether the restricted expression has been historically or traditionally protected; (3) whether a government policy designed to benefit the general welfare weighs in favor of the regulation; (4) the fit between the disputed speech regulation and the public end; and …

Constitutional Law: Hey, That's My Trash! Warrantless Searches Of Garbage Under The Minnesota Constitution—State V. Mcmurray, Lauren M. Hoglund

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Model Or Anti-Model? U.S. Regulatory Takings Doctrine In Foreign Jurisdictions, Melanie Benesh

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

Canada and Australia have taken a different approach to regulatory takings than Peru, despite some similarities among the countries. Like Peru, Canada and Australia both have IIAs with the United States. Like Peru, both have also addressed regulatory takings issues in their domestic jurisprudence since signing those IIAs. And like Peru, both Canada and Australia have looked to U.S. regulatory takings doctrine while developing their own domestic jurisprudence. However, unlike Peru, Canada and Australia have both ultimately decided that the U.S. regulatory takings doctrine would not be viable in their constitutional and political systems. They view U.S. regulatory takings doctrine …

Shareholder Political Primacy, Jay B. Kesten

Scholarly Publications

Corporate political activity raises an important and difficult question of corporate law: who decides when the corporation should speak and what it should say? In several cases, the Supreme Court has provided a clear answer: shareholders, acting through the procedures of corporate democracy. While this holding has attracted substantial academic and public criticism, there has been no sustained evaluation (beyond identifying the potential agency costs of corporate political activity) of the possibility that the Supreme Court's appeal to the fraught concept of "corporate democracy," though woefully under-theorized, might be the best allocation of power in the limited context of corporate …

Revisiting Congresssional Delegation Of Interpretative Primacy As The Foundation For Chevron Defense, Mark Seidenfeld

Scholarly Publications

Although congressional delegation is the rationale used most often to justify the Chevron doctrine, most scholars who have written about this justification have recognized that it is a fiction, albeit, they claim, a useful one. In “Chevron’s Foundation,” I proposed an alternative foundation for the Chevron doctrine—a judicial self-limitation justification for Chevron deference—based on an implicit understanding of Article III that courts should not resolve cases by making policy choices where alternative means for deciding these cases exists. In this essay, I first revisit my original critique of the delegation rationale and explicitly respond to the arguments …

Dear Irs, It Is Time To Enforce The Campaigning Prohibition. Even Against Churches, Samuel D. Brunson

University of Colorado Law Review

In 1954, Congress prohibited tax-exempt public charities, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for office. To the extent a tax-exempt public charity violated this prohibition, it would no longer qualify as tax-exempt, and the IRS was to revoke its exemption.

While simple in theory, in practice, the IRS rarely penalizes churches that violate the campaigning prohibition and virtually never revokes a church's tax exemption. And, because no taxpayer has standing to challenge the IRS's inaction, the IRS has no external imperative to revoke the exemptions of churches that do campaign on behalf of or against candidates for office.

This …

Person, State, Or Not: The Place Of Business Corporations In Our Constitutional Order, Daniel J.H. Greenwood

University of Colorado Law Review

Business corporations are critical institutions in our democratic republican, market-based, economic order. The United States Constitution, however, is completely silent as to their status in our system. The Supreme Court has filled this silence by repeatedly granting corporations rights against the citizenry and its elected representatives.

Instead, we ought to view business corporations, like municipal corporations, as governance structures created by We the People to promote our general Welfare. On this social contract view, corporations should have the constitutional rights specified in the text: none. Instead, we should be debating which rights of citizens against governmental agencies should also apply …

Restore The Republic: The Incompatibility Between The Taxpayer's Bill Of Rights And The Guarantee Clause, Joshua Pens

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Viewing The Supreme Court's Exactions Cases Through The Prism Of Anti-Evasion, Michael B. Kent Jr.

University of Colorado Law Review

This Article considers the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, which extended the application of the Court's framework for evaluating the constitutionality of land use exactions (known as the Nollan/Dolan test). The majority of the Court relied heavily on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, explaining that this doctrine formed the basis not only for the Nollan/Dolan framework but also for the extension of that framework to Koontz's new factual setting. Four members of the Court dissented. Although the dissenting justices seemingly agreed with several of the majority's propositions, they vigorously opposed the manner …

The President's Faithful Execution Duty, Harold H. Bruff

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Executive Power Under The Constitution: A Presidential And Parliamentary System Compared, Gabrielle Appleby, Adam Webster

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presidential Constitutional Interpretation, Signing Statements, Executive Power, And Zivotofsky, Henry L. Chambers, Jr

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Presidential Statutory Stretch And The Rule Of Law, Peter M. Shane

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expanding Standing To Develop Democracy: Third Party Public Interest Standing As A Tool For Emerging Democracies, Aparna Polavarapu

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

James Wilson In The State House Yard: Ratifying The Structures Of Popular Sovereignty, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

There is an excellent (and rapidly growing) literature examining the influence of James Wilson's Scottish philosophical education on his later political ideas. In this Article, Professor Ian Bartrum makes two contributions to that scholarship. First, he reexamines several of the most important Scottish moral sentimentalists with a particular focus on the specific ontological and epistemological accounts that influenced Wilson. Second, he dissolves the seeming contradictions in Wilson's political thought by showing that, while he understood that representative bodies were essential to legitimate government, he nonetheless distrusted these institutions because they work to obscure, or even subvert, their members' individual experience …