Constitutional Law Commons^™

Advising Terrorism: Material Support, Safe Harbors, And Freedom Of Speech, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Methodology Of Comparative Law, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Withdrawing From International Custom: Terrible Food, Small Portions, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Curtis A. Bradley and Mitu Gulati’s Withdrawing from International Custom brings to mind the old joke recounted by Woody Allen in Annie Hall: “Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, ‘Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.’ The other one says, ‘Yeah, I know; and such small portions.’” Similarly, while Bradley and Gulati attack international law’s current prohibition of unilateral withdrawal from custom, they propose an alternative that differs only modestly from it (small portions). At the same time, the doctrinal change they propose would take customary international law in the …

Customary International Law As U.S. Law: A Critique Of The Revisionist And Intermediate Positions And A Defense Of The Modern Position, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In a recent referendum, the citizens of Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved a State constitutional amendment providing that the courts of the State "shall not consider international law or Sharia law" in rendering their decisions. The amendment's exclusion of Sharia law has garnered most of the media attention, but more consequential by far is the measure's directive to the State courts to disregard international law. Similar measures have been proposed in other States, some of them merely barring consideration of Sharia law or foreign law, but others barring consideration of international law as well. These measures are clearly unconstitutional insofar as they …

Misunderstanding Congress: Statutory Interpretation, The Supermajoritarian Difficulty, And The Separation Of Powers, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Every lawyer's theory of statutory interpretation carries with it an idea of Congress, and every idea of Congress, in turn, carries with it an idea of the separation of powers. In this article, the author critiques three dominant academic theories of statutory interpretation--textualism, purposivism, and game theory--for their assumptions about Congress and the separation of powers. She argues that each academic theory fails to account for Congress's dominant institutional features: "the electoral connection," the "supermajoritarian difficulty," and the "principle of structure-induced ambiguity." This critique yields surprising conclusions, rejecting both standard liberal and conservative views on statutory interpretation.

"Plain" meaning, it …

Two Kinds Of Plain Meaning, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Is plain meaning so plain? This is not meant to be a philosophical question, but one deserving serious legal analysis. The plain-meaning rule claims to provide certainty and narrow statutes' domains. The author agrees with, as a relative claim, comparing plain meaning with purposivism. She does not agree that plain-meaning analysis is as easy as its proponents suggest. In this piece, the author teases out two very different ideas of plain meaning--ordinary/popular meaning and expansive/legalist meaning--suggesting that doctrinal analysis requires more than plain-meaning simpliciter. Perhaps more importantly, she argues that plain meaning, as legalist meaning, can quite …

Buck V. Bell: A Constitutional Tragedy From A Lost World, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Some constitutional tragedies are well known: Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States are taught to every first-year law student. Buck v. Bell is not. Decided in 1927 by the Taft Court, the case is known for its shocking remedy--sterilization--and Justice Holmes's dramatic rhetoric: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." A mere five paragraphs long, Buck v. Bell could represent the highest ratio of injustice per word ever signed on to by eight Supreme Court Justices, progressive and conservative alike.

Buck v. Bell is not a tragedy as some others might define tragedy: it is not a well-known opinion, …

Skilling: More Blind Monks Examining The Elephant, Julie R. O'Sullivan

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Most academics and practitioners with whom the author has discussed the result in Skilling v. United States believe that it is a sensible decision. That is, the Supreme Court did the best it could to limit the reach of 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which all nine justices apparently believed—correctly—was, on its face, unconstitutionally vague. Congress responded quickly and with little consideration with the supremely under-defined § 1346. In the over twenty years since the statute's enactment, the Courts of Appeals have been unable to come up with any unified limiting principles to contain its reach. The Skilling Court, evidently reluctant …

What Is Originalism? The Evolution Of Contemporary Originalist Theory, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Debates over “originalism” have been a central focus of contemporary constitutional theory for three decades. One of the features of this debate has been disagreement about what “originalism” is. More worrisome is the possibility that the arguments between contemporary originalists and their opponents, the “living constitutionalists”, are confused–-with each side of the debate making erroneous assumptions about the content of their opponent’s theories.

The aim of this chapter is to clarify these debates by providing a history of contemporary originalism and then developing an account of the core or focal content of originalist theory. The history reveals that contemporary originalist …

The Fifth Freedom: The Constitutional Duty To Provide Public Education, Areto A. Imoukuede

Journal Publications

This Article explains why there is a fundamental duty for the government to provide public education under the U.S. Constitution. Numerous scholars and public officials have written on the need to overrule San Antonio v. Rodriguez or adopt alternative approaches to recognizing a right to public education either judicially or by way of constitutional amendment. This Article identifies a consistent and systemic reluctance by the Court to meaningfully enforce positive rights, which are the duties that the government owes to the people. In doing so, it explores the consistent recognition throughout American history that education is a fundamental duty of …

Orphan Works And The Google Book Search Settlement: An International Perspective, Bernard Lang

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Apoplectic About Hyperlexis, William Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Justice Stevens And Constitutional Adjudication: The Law Beyond The Rules., William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Finding Sigtarp In The Separation Of Powers Labyrinth, Jonathan R. Siegel

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Tax Or Not A Tax: That Is The Question, Erik M. Jensen

Faculty Publications

This piece is part of the author’s probably misguided effort to take seriously the Sixteenth Amendment phrase “taxes on incomes.” The piece (in form a letter to the editor, but complete with footnotes!) responds to a reader who had noted that, because of a cap, the basic Social Security “tax” does not reach higher levels of income. Because the author had earlier argued that a tax “on” incomes should result in higher tax liability for higher-income persons, it might seem that the Social Security levy is unconstitutional (or the author just wrong). This piece makes several points: (1) The Social …

Law School Clinics And The First Amendment, Jonathan L. Entin

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Perry V. Schwarzenegger: Is Traditional Marriage Unconstitutional?, George W. Dent

Faculty Publications

This is a brief defense of the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which limits marriage for purposes of California law to a relationship between one man and one woman.

Beware Of Wooden Nickels: The Paradox Of Florida's Legislative Overreaction In The Wake Of Kelo, Ann Marie Cavazos

Journal Publications

This article addresses Florida's reaction to the United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the Court provided a more expansive view of "the public use" of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause to include taking property from one private owner and transferring it to a corporation or non-private citizen when the transfer is deemed by the lawmakers to be in the public good or for a public purpose. Florida, together with several other states, concluded that such eminent domain takings, while constitutionally permissible, offend the states' sense of fair play as it relates to …

A Hypothetical Postulate For The Polemic Of Extraordinary Rendition Vis-A-Vis The Paradigm Of Asymmetric Warfare, John C. Duncan, Jr.

Journal Publications

This article presents a controversial hypothetical approach to a side of the polemic regarding extraordinary rendition. War is not always controlled by rules, fairness, or ethics. The United States would prefer the foregoing if forced to go to war, but the enemy may not follow the same approach. As a result, the United States becomes hampered by unilaterally self-imposed rules and standards. Conceivably, we could fail to achieve our military objective because of the enemy's adherence to a very different approach and beliefs regarding warfare. Were we to have the privilege of fighting under relatively similar rules with the other …

Reaction To: Wealth, Poverty, And The Equal Protection Clause, Patricia A. Broussard

Journal Publications

No abstract provided.