Constitutional Law Commons^™

Globally Speaking - Honoring The Victims' Stories: Matsuda's Human Rights Praxis, Berta E. Hernández-Truyol

UF Law Faculty Publications

Globally speaking, international law and the vast majority of domestic legal systems strive to protect the right to freedom of expression. The United States’ First Amendment provides an early historical protection of speech—a safeguard now embraced around the world. The extent of this protection, however, varies among states.

The United States stands alone in excluding countervailing considerations of equality, dignitary, or privacy interests that would favor restrictions on speech. The gravamen of the argument supporting such American exceptionalism is that free expression is necessary in a democracy. Totalitarianism, the libertarian narrative goes, thrives on government control of information to the …

Protecting The Family Home By Reunderstanding United States V. Bajakajian, Yan Slavinskiy

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Institutional Progress Clause, Jake Linford

Scholarly Publications

There is a curious anomaly at the intersection of copyright and free speech. In cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court has exhibited a profound distaste for tailoring free speech rights and restrictions based on the identity of the speaker. The Copyright Act, however, is full of such tailoring, extending special rights to some copyright owners and special defenses to some users. A Supreme Court serious about maintaining speaker neutrality would be appalled.

A set of compromises at the heart of the Copyright Act reflects interest-group lobbying rather than a careful consideration of …

The Value Of Life: Constitutional Limits On Citizens’ Use Of Deadly Force, F. Patrick Hubbard

Faculty Publications

This Article argues that most states have unconstitutionally overbroad authorizations for citizens to use deadly force in the context of crime prevention, citizen’s arrest, and defense of one’s “castle.” Similarly, some authorizations of deadly force for self-defense in public areas may be unconstitutional. The starting points of this argument are the fundamental value of life, the state’s monopoly of deadly force, and the fundamental constitutional right to life. Because of the state’s monopoly of deadly force, any use of such force is either legitimate or proscribed. The lack of a third category of “private” use of deadly force affects constitutional …

The Carbon Suite In The Hotel California: "We Are All Just Prisoners Here, Of Our Own Device", Steven Ferrey

Suffolk University Law School Faculty Works

As in the Eagle’s classic album and song “Hotel California,” California became a legal “prisoner of its own device,” amid a suite of legal challenges for exceeding the U.S. Constitution’s limits on state power. What distinguished California is not the large suite of recent legal challenges, but the fact that they are initiated by all stakeholders -- environmental, low-income, and industry groups. California was declared to have acted illegally on some basis, or it capitulated through settlement, in the majority of these challenges.

This article charts more than a half dozen recent and often successful challenges to California regulation based …

Officers Under The Appointments Clause, John Plecnik

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Much ink has been spilled, and many keyboards worn, debating the definition of "Officers of the United States" under the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. The distinction between Officers and employees is constitutionally and practically significant, because the former must be appointed by the President, with or without the advice and consent of the Senate, Courts of Law, or Heads of Departments. In contrast, employees may be hired by anyone in any manner.

Appointments Clause controversies are triggered when a government official who was hired as an employee is accused of unconstitutionally wielding …

Overcoming Barriers To The Protection Of Viable Fetuses, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

I start this Article from the premise that the Court was correct in Roe v. Wade concerning the significance of fetal viability. I assume for the sake of argument that viability is a momentous point in pregnancy and that “logical and biological justifications” support a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of fetuses that have crossed the viability threshold. The goal of this Article is to highlight factors that individually and in concert significantly hinder legislative attempts to preserve the lives of viable fetuses, and to identify measures that, if permitted by the courts, could facilitate the pursuit of …

Failing To Warn In The Context Of Rare Side Effects, Morris Dweck

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

No abstract provided.

Personal Curtilage: Fourth Amendment Security In Public, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

William & Mary Law Review

Do citizens have any Fourth Amendment protection from senseenhancing surveillance technologies in public? This Article engages a timely question as new surveillance technologies have redefined expectations of privacy in public spaces. It proposes a new theory of Fourth Amendment security based on the ancient theory of curtilage protection for private property. Curtilage has long been understood as a legal fiction that expands the protection of the home beyond the formal structures of the house. Based on custom and law protecting against both nosy neighbors and the government, curtilage was defined by the actions the property owner took to signal a …

Why Arizona V. Gant Is The Wrong Solution To The Warrantless Cell Phone Search Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Transformative Twelfth Amendment, Joshua D. Hawley

William & Mary Law Review

Scholars have long treated the Twelfth Amendment as a constitutional obscurity, a merely mechanical adjustment to the electoral college—and perhaps a less than successful one at that. This consensus is mistaken. In fact, the Twelfth Amendment accomplished one of the most consequential changes to the structure of our constitutional government yet. It fundamentally altered the nature of the Executive and the Executive’s relationship to the other branches of government. The Amendment changed the Executive into something it had not been before: a political office. The presidency designed at Philadelphia was intended to be neither a policymaking nor a representative institution, …

The Double Helix Of Supremacy And Commerce Clause Constitutional Restraints Encircling The New Energy Frontier, Steven Ferrey

Suffolk University Law School Faculty Works

This article unwinds the legal double helix to examine the constitutional jurisdictional assault on American energy infrastructure and law. We examine pivotal elements of the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and procedural aspects of ongoing challenges on energy and climate change law. We untwist and dissect energy law and regulation, focusing on key cases in the East, the Midwest, and California. In integrating the recent federal court interpretations, the Article I and VI constitutional double helix remains the critical legal restriction arresting the future of U.S. energy policy and infrastructure. Each region's law creates a distinct wedge into energy infrastructure, …

The Filibuster And The Framing: Why The Cloture Rule Is Unconstitutional And What To Do About It, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

The U.S. Senate’s handling of filibusters has changed dramatically in recent decades. As a result, the current sixty-vote requirement for invoking cloture of debate does not produce protracted speechmaking on the Senate floor, as did predecessors of this rule in earlier periods of our history. Rather, the upper chamber now functions under a “stealth filibuster” system that in practical effect requires action by a supermajority to pass proposed bills. This Article demonstrates why this system offends a constitutional mandate of legislative majoritarianism in light of well-established Framing-era understandings and governing substance-over-form principles of interpretation. Having established the presence of a …

Unconstitutionality And The Rule Of Wide-Open Cross-Examination: Encroaching On The Fifth Amendment When Examining The Accused, Ronald L. Carlson, Michael S. Carlson

Scholarly Works

When Georgia adopted a new evidence code on January 1, 2013, it embraced the rule on scope of cross-examination which local courts have traditionally followed. This is the wide-open rule which permits the cross-examiner to range across the entire case, no matter how limited the direct exam. Subjects foreign to the direct can be freely explored, limited only by the rule of relevancy.

Commentators have associated the majority, more limited cross-examination methodology with American jurisprudence and the wide-ranging approach with English courts. Reflecting this divide, the Supreme Court of South Dakota recognized "two principal schools of thought" when it comes …

Federalism And Phantom Economic Rights In Nfib V. Sibelius, Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

Few predicted that the constitutional fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would turn on Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes. Yet in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the centerpiece of the Act — the minimum coverage provision (MCP), commonly known as the “individual mandate” — as a tax. The unexpected basis of the Court’s holding has deflected attention from what may prove to be the decision’s more constitutionally consequential feature: that a majority of the Court agreed that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to penalize people who decline to purchase health insurance. …

The Necessary And Proper Clauses, John Mikhail

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Article's main purpose is to provide a new and more accurate account of the origins of the Necessary and Proper Clauses. I refer to the Necessary and Proper “Clauses” rather than to the Necessary and Proper “Clause” to emphasize that the relevant constitutional text is comprised of three distinct provisions, only the first of which concerns the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8:

1. “Congress shall have Power . . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”
2. “Congress shall have Power . . . To make all Laws …

The Myth Of Strict Scrutiny For Fundamental Rights, James E. Fleming, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia stated that, under the Due Process Clause, if an asserted liberty is a "fundamental right," it triggers "strict scrutiny" that almost automatically invalidates any statute restricting that liberty. For strict scrutiny requires that the challenged statute, to be upheld, must further a "compelling governmental interest" and must be "necessary" or "narrowly tailored" to doing so. Scalia also wrote that if an asserted liberty is not a fundamental right, it is merely a "liberty interest" that triggers rational basis scrutiny that is so deferential that the Court all but automatically upholds the statute in …

Enforcement Discretion And Executive Duty, Zachary S. Price

Vanderbilt Law Review

Recent Presidents have claimed wide-ranging authority to decline enforcement of federal laws. The Obama Administration, for example, has announced policies of abstaining from investigation and prosecution of certain federal marijuana crimes, postponing enforcement of key provisions of the Affordable Care Act, and suspending enforcement of removal statutes against certain undocumented immigrants. While these examples highlight how exercises of executive enforcement discretion-the authority to turn a blind eye to legal violations-may effectively reshape federal policy, prior scholarship has offered no satisfactory account of the proper scope of, and constitutional basis for, this putative executive authority. This Article fills that gap. Through …

The Obligation Of Members Of Congress To Consider Constitutionality While Deliberating And Voting: The Deficiencies Of House Rule Xii And A Proposed Rule For The Senate, Russ Feingold

Vanderbilt Law Review

Most scholarly attention on constitutional interpretation is focused on the judicial branch and its role in our system of separation of powers. Nonetheless, constitutional interpretation should not take place solely in the courts. Rather, history suggests our Framers envisioned that members of Congress, as well as the President and the courts, would have an independent and important role to play in interpreting our Constitution. Yet this obligation has eroded such that House Speaker John Boehner, with the support of the Tea Party and his Republican colleagues, called for a "sea change" in the way the House of Representatives operates, with …

Complicity And Collection: Religious Freedom And Tax, Jennifer Carr

Scholarly Works

This Article focuses on how the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill might be improved so that members of Congress enact it. The bill would allow war tax resisters who qualify as pacifists to direct their tax money to a separate fund not to be used for military spending. At present, the IRS is expending time and resources trying to track down tax resisters, which results in loss of revenue for the government. This Article argues that passage of an amended version of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill would eliminate the tension between the IRS and war tax …