Constitutional Law Commons^™

Phony Originalism And The Establishment Clause, Andrew M. Koppelman

Faculty Working Papers

The "originalist" interpretations of the Establishment Clause by Supreme Court Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas are remarkably indifferent to the original purposes of that clause. Their arguments are a remarkable congeries of historical error and outright misrepresentation. This is not necessarily a criticism of originalism per se. However, the abuse of originalist scholarship that these judges have practiced raises questions about what originalist scholars are actually accomplishing.

What Will We Lose If The Trial Vanishes?, Robert P. Burns

Faculty Working Papers

The number of trials continues to decline andfederal civil trials have almost completely disappeared. This essay attempts to address the significance of this loss, to answer the obvious question, "So what?" It argues against taking a resigned or complacent attitude toward an important problem for our public culture. It presents a short description of the trial's internal structure, recounts different sorts of explanations, and offers an inventory of the kinds of wounds this development would inflict.

Why Jack Balkin Is Disgusting, Andrew Koppelman

Faculty Working Papers

Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin didn't win friends when he announced that (1) he is now a constitutional originalist and (2) the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to abortion. His claim to membership in the originalist club brought forth a small army of eager bouncers, who were sure that originalism couldn't possibly defend the paradigmatic departure from the Constitution's original meaning.

Balkin has indeed posed a radical challenge to the vision of law that drives the originalists – more radical than he is willing to admit. His theory is in such deep tension with a commonly …

Bad News For Mail Robbers: The Obvious Constitutionality Of Health Care Reform, Andrew Koppelman

Faculty Working Papers

Two federal district judges have invalidated the so-called "individual mandate" in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Their reasoning is bizarre and mischievous. The novel approach to constitutional law that they propose would misread the Constitution, betray the intentions of the framers, and cripple the nation's ability to address one of its most pressing problems.

The correct legal analysis is simple. Congress has the authority to solve problems that the states cannot separately solve. It can choose any reasonable means to do that.

Doma, Romer, And Rationality, Andrew Koppelman

Faculty Working Papers

It has been objected by many that the Defense of Marriage Act lacks a rational basis because it reflects a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group. The increasing success of the argument, which has persuaded three federal judges, reveals the hidden normative premises of rational basis analysis, at least whenever that analysis is used to invalidate a statute. Since 1996, when DOMA was passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress, the country's attitudes toward gay people have evolved rapidly, to the point where this kind of mindless lashing out at gays looks a lot less attractive. …

Partisan Conflicts Over Presidential Authority, Jide Okechuku Nzelibe

Faculty Working Papers

A prevailing view in the legal and political science literature assumes that power holders seek to expand or contract their constitutional authority based on incentives that are intrinsic to the logic of the institutional offices they occupy. For instance, it is generally assumed that Presidents are empire builders who will almost always prefer maximum flexibility in shaping their policy objectives, whereas members of Congress may sometimes shirk their institutional prerogatives because of electoral incentives or collective action problems. A similar institutional logic underpins the view that federal courts will often seek to expand their interpretive authority in constitutional controversies at …

Coase And The Constitution: A New Approach To Federalism, F.E Guerra-Pujol

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

This paper proposes a new approach to the centuries-old question of federalism. In a word, we approach the problem offederalism from a Coasian or property-rights perspective. That is, instead of attempting to draw an arbitrary boundary line between state and federal spheres of power through traditional legal or semantic analysis of the constitution and previous judicial precedents, this paper proposes the creation of alternative 'federalism markets" in which governmental powers and functions would be allocated to Congress, the states, or even private firms through decentralized auction mechanisms and secondary markets. The paper is divided into five parts. Following a brief …

Limiting Legislative Courts: Protecting Article Iii From Article I Evisceration, Kenneth G. Coffin

Barry Law Review

This article will analyze possible limitations on Congress’ Article I power, concluding that separation of powers jurisprudence offers a practical and appropriate manner in which to check Congressional overreach. Part I traces the development of Congress’ power to create Article I courts. Part II critically evaluates the Northern Pipeline opinions, ultimately finding neither Justice Brennan’s nor Justice White’s conflicting opinions satisfactory. Part III briefly discusses several possible limiting principles on Article I courts before concluding that separation of powers jurisprudence offers a meaningful and pragmatic solution to the problem. Part IV tests the practicality of this new separation of powers …

Legally Ill: Is The Federal Health Insurance Mandate Constitutional?, Josh Bolus

Barry Law Review

This article explores the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the health care reform bill known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as well as the economic penalty that is assessed to those who do not meet the mandate. A brief history of prior health reform initiatives in the United States will be examined to provide a historical context for the current political debate regarding the currently instituted reforms. The legal justifications of the proponents for the mandate will be analyzed regarding their constitutionality, and the legal fate of the mandate will be examined. Lastly, this article will …

State Courts And Constitutional Socio- Economic Rights: Exploring The Underutilization Thesis, Stephen Loffredo, Helen Herschkoff

Publications and Research

No abstract provided.

Police Mistakes Of Law, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

This Article addresses something that most Americans would consider a constitutional impossibility: police officers stopping or arresting individuals for lawful behavior and courts deeming such seizures reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes, thereby precluding application of the exclusionary rule. Today, however, an increasing number of courts condone seizures based on what they consider “reasonable” police mistakes of law, typically concerning petty offenses, and permit evidence secured as a result to support prosecutions for unrelated, more serious offenses (usually relating to guns or drugs). The Article surveys the important rule-of-law, separation-of-powers, and legislative-accountability reasons supporting continued judicial adherence to the historic no-excuse …

Salazar V. Buono: A Missed Opportunity To Clarify The Reasonable Observer Test, Sumahn Das

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Education As A Counterterrorism Tool And The Curious Case Of The Texas School Book Resolution, Diane Webber

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Conflicts Over Conflicts: Challenges In Redrafting The Aba Standards For Criminal Justice On Conflicts Of Interest, Laurie L. Levenson

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Currently, an ABA Task Force faces the considerable challenge of redrafting the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice. Prosecutors and defense counsel need clear guidance on how to handle conflicts of interest rules. However, the initial challenge is in identifying those questions a code of ethics should answer when it comes to conflict situations. With the help of prominent lawyers, academics and judges who participated in a series of roundtables on the new ABA standards, this article identifies forty of the key questions to ask about conflicts of interests. These questions allow real progress to be made toward creating a code …

Witness Preparation: Regulating The Profession's Dirty Little Secret, Roberta K. Flowers

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Although all attorneys understand that coaching a witness to testify falsely is unethical, additional ethical restraints surrounding witness preparation in criminal cases are not clearly defined by case law, rules of professional conduct or even the newly drafted Criminal Justice Standards for Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys. Many have suggested that the line between proper witness preparation and improper witness coaching is not clear. This article explores some of the gray areas of the practice of witness preparation and why criminal attorneys from both sides of the aisle need guidance on permissible and impermissible conduct in this routine practice of criminal …

Prosecuting Terrorism: The Material Support Statute And Muslim Charities, Michael G. Freedman

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

The federal law prohibiting the provision of material support to terrorist organizations has been no stranger to controversy. From its politically charged origins through its repeated amendment after September 11, 2001, it has remained an important, but often critiqued, weapon in the government's legal response to terrorism. The most prominent legal challenge to the law lasted over a decade. It culminated in June 2010, when the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The Court's opinion, however, correctly recognized that important questions remain unresolved.

One such question, which this Note addresses, …

Reconciling Parliamentary Sovereignty And Judicial Review: On The Theoretical And Historical Origins Of The Israeli Legislative Override Power, Rivka Weill

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

It is often asserted that a formal constitution does not necessitate judicial review over primary legislation. Rather, a country may conceive of other mechanisms to protect the constitution from intrusion by the regular political bodies. The question arises whether the reverse holds true. Can we envision a country that exercises judicial review over primary legislation yet lacks a formal constitution? Surprisingly, Israel's constitutional system, prior to the famous 1995 United Mizrahi Bank decision, offers an affirmative answer to this question.

This article focuses on Israel's constitutional experience during its founding period. It further explains the unique revolutionary role performed by …

Quirky Constitutional Provisions Matter: The Tonnage Clause, Polar Tankers, And State Taxation Of Commerce, Erik M. Jensen

Faculty Publications

In Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, the Supreme Court in 29 struck down a City of Valdez levy that was in form a personal-property tax, but that primarily reached oil tankers using Valdez’s ports, on the ground that the levy violated the Tonnage Clause of the Constitution (“No State, shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage”). The Tonnage Clause, part of the constitutional structure intended to ensure federal primacy in regulating commerce, was once a staple of litigation, but Polar Tankers was the first Supreme Court case decided under the Clause since 1935. Polar …

Cooperation, Commandeering, Or Crowding Out? : Federal Intervention And State Choices In Health Care Policy, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) substantially alters the respective roles of the federal and state governments in health care policy. Beyond the individual mandate, the ACA presents many questions of federalism, both constitutional and policy-related. This paper, prepared for a symposium sponsored by the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, addresses some of these federalism issues. After outlining some of the policy considerations for determining the proper federal and state balance in health care policy, it identifies constitutional limitations on the federal government’s ability to direct or even influence state policy choices, before discussing how federal …

Closing The Door On Misconduct: Rethinking The Ethical Standards That Govern Summations In Criminal Trials, Daniel S. Medwed

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Closing argument is the most pivotal moment in a criminal trial. It represents the last opportunity for prosecutors to convince jurors of the defendant's guilt and for defense lawyers to show reasonable doubt. As a result, criminal lawyers may be tempted to conclude with sweeping arguments that pull at the heartstrings of their target audience, the jury. Scholars dating back to Aristotle have warned that the most persuasive arguments often contain an appeal to emotion-and that emotionally laden rhetoric can distract people from making rational choices.

Legal ethicists have struggled with the issues surrounding closing arguments, trying to reconcile the …