Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Emergency Powers Of The Judiciary, Or Necessity And German Constitutionalism, Jacqueline R. Hunsicker

Schmooze 'tickets'

No abstract provided.

February 22, 2013: Time Off For Surgery, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Time Off for Surgery“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

February 22, 2013: Time Off For Minor Surgery, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Time Off for Minor Surgery“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Religions As Sovereigns: Why Religion Is "Special", Elizabeth Clark

Faculty Scholarship

Commentators increasingly challenge religion’s privileged legal status, arguing that it is not “special” or distinct from other associations or philosophical or conscientious claims. I propose that religion is “special” because it functions metaphorically as a legal sovereign, asserting supreme authority over a realm of human life. Under a religion-as-sovereign theory, religious freedom can be understood as at least partial deference to a religious sovereign in a system of shared or overlapping sovereignty. This Article suggests that federalism, which also involves shared sovereignty, can provide a useful heuristic device for examining religious freedom. Specifically, the Article examines a range of federalism …

What Standard Should Be Used To Determine A Valid Juvenile Waiver?, Martin Levy, Stephen Skacevic

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Constitutional Right Of Privacy And Exclusion Of Evidence In Civil Proceedings, Jerry D. Mackey

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Mexican-American Penal Sentences Treaty: A Run-On Sentence, Gary Gray

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Where For Art Thou Danforth: Bellotti V. Baird , David C. Boatwright

Pepperdine Law Review

The author's focus is upon a Supreme Court opinion dealing with the constitutional parameters of a minor's right to make an independent decision with respect to abortion. The majority, in an attempt to balance the often conflicting interests of the minor, the minor's parents, and the state, sets forth the minimum requirements with which parental consent statutes must comply. The author emphasizes the significance of the high court's plurality split regarding this issue, and cautions the practitioner as to the possibility of inconsistent rulings on such statutes in the future.

Procedural Rights In The Juvenile Court: Incorporation Or Due Process?, Glen W. Clark

Pepperdine Law Review

The landmark Supreme Court decision in In re Gault established, among other things, a juvenile's right to counsel in delinquency prosecutions. However, the decision left unanswered certain questions relating to the nature and scope of that right. In this article, the author examines whether or not Gault initiated a special due process right to counsel for juveniles apart from that body of sixth amendment law previously developed in criminal cases. Alternatively, he wonders whether Gault was meant to initiate a process of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the juvenile justice system. The author critically analyzes the resulting …

The Road To Abolition: How Widespread Legislative Repeal Of The Death Penalty In The States Could Catalyze A Nationwide Ban On Capital Punishment, Nicholas M. Parker

Legislation and Policy Brief

On December 17, 2007, former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed into law a bill that abolished his state’s death penalty, saying he felt a “moral duty to end ‘state-endorsed killing.’” With Corzine’s signature, New Jersey became the fourteenth state to eradicate the death penalty, and the first to do so legislatively since Iowa and West Virginia legislators did away with capital punishment in 1965. The vote by New Jersey lawmakers followed close, but ultimately unsuccessful, votes on similar bills in Colorado, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, and New Mexico earlier in 2007. And while it took more than thirty-one years for …

Circumventing The Electoral College: Why The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under The Compact Clause, Michael Brody

Legislation and Policy Brief

It’s Election Night 2016. Brian Williams stands by at NBC, waiting to give the first returns of the night. “Kentucky to Christie,” Williams triumphantly announces to kick off the evening’s festivities. Kentucky turns flush red on NBC’s virtual election map. Williams continues: “Maryland to Clinton.” Now comes the hard part for Williams. Clinton won Maryland by an incredible two-to-one margin. NBC viewers intently watch the map, expecting to see the Old Line State turn blue. Instead, Maryland sits idly in its static grey color. This election has something new.

Confused NBC viewers keep watching, waiting for Williams to provide an …

February 16, 2013: No One Believes In Separation Of Church And State, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “No One Believes in Separation of Church and State“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The End Of An Era: The Supreme Court (Finally) Butts Out Of Punitive Damages For Good, Jim Gash

Florida Law Review

Part I of this Article chronicles and summarizes the development of the Supreme Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. Over the past two decades, the Court has increasingly constitutionalized various aspects of punitive damages jurisprudence, using both procedural and substantive due process rationales. A set of three “guideposts” has emerged that courts are to use in determining whether a punitive damages award runs afoul of constitutional guarantees.

Part II outlines the multiple punishments problem that is currently facing courts throughout the country and provides a brief overview of the various failed attempts and current proposals to remedy this problem.

Part III provides …

Two Faces Of Judicial Restraint (Or Are There More?) In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Nelson Lund

Florida Law Review

Since the days of the Warren Court, conservatives have attacked “judicial activism.” Beginning with Judge Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination hearings, and lately with increasing frequency, liberals have sought to turn the tables. Critics now charge that conservative judges are activists, especially when they undermine liberal precedents or strike down liberal legislation. Defenders of judicial activism have all but disappeared. One sign of this apparent consensus is that all Supreme Court nominees now promise to be paragons of judicial restraint.

Some politicians and commentators have suggested that nominees are dissembling when they make such statements, and some of the sitting …

Half Faith And Credit?: The Fifth Circuit Upholds Louisiana's Refusal To Issue A Revised Birth Certificate, Thomas M. Joraanstad

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Sex Segregation In Public Schools: Separate But Equal?, Lily A. Saffer

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Consolidated Edison Company Of New York V. Public Service Commission: Freedom Of Speech Extended To Monopolies - Is There No Escape For The Consumer?, Lynn K. Warren

Pepperdine Law Review

The author's focus is upon an opinion of the United States Supreme Court which silently extended first amendment freedoms to a corporate monopoly. The majority attempts a balancing of the monopoly utility's freedom of speech against the state's protection of the privacy interests of the ratepayers and finds the privacy interest not to be so compelling as to justify any restriction on freedom of speech. The author suggests that the privacy interest is so substantial as to be compelling and further agrees with the dissent, that because of the special position of the Consolidated Edison Company as a monopoly and …

United States V. Salvucci: The Problematic Absence Of Automatic Standing, William C. Bollard

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court recently abolished the automatic standing rule in United States v. Salvucci. The author analyzes the difficulties created for the criminal defendant charged with a possessory crime. In particular, this note focuses on the inequitable position the defendant is placed in when his suppression hearing testimony is used as a tool to impeach subsequent testimony offered at trial. The author continues by pointing out that the "prosecutorial self-contradiction," sought to be abolished in Salvucci, remains a part of our present judicial system. In conclusion, the author offers several considerations that will necessarily be an integral part …

Harris V. Mcrae: Whatever Happened To The Roe V. Wade Abortion Right?, Laura Crocker

Pepperdine Law Review

The controversial Roe v. Wade decision purportedly removed the abortion controversy from the political arena and set constitutional standards by which questions on the issue could be resolved. The enactment of the Hyde Amendment, a bill which generally forbids the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, was a recent political response to the abortion controversy. However, in the recent case of Harris v. McRae, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment and thus injected the abortion controversy back into the political arena. The author exhaustively examines the abortion controversy from the time of the Roe decision up …

Agins V. City Of Tiburon: Open Space Zoning Prevails - Failure To Submit Master Plan Prevents A Cognizable Decrease In Property Value, Jermaine Chastain

Pepperdine Law Review

This casenote examines the Supreme Court's struggle to reconcile its focus on the facial validity of a zoning ordinance with the traditional "taking" approach requiring diligent factual inquiry. While the Agins Court reiterates such an approach, the author notes the Court's departure from important constitutional and precedential considerations. The author offers a possible explanation for the departure, concluding that the Agins decision apparently makes plan submission a prerequisite for acknowledging economic loss and strongly implies a requirement of complete loss of all property value before a compensable taking will be recognized.