Constitutional Law Commons^™

December 14, 2010: A Fundamental Rights Decision Masquerading As A Commerce Decision, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “A Fundamental Rights Decision Masquerading as a Commerce Decision“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

December 11, 2010: Hallowed Secularism And The Tea Party, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Hallowed Secularism and the Tea Party“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Summary Of Berkson V. Lepome, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46, Cayla Witty

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Michigan V. Bryant: Defining The “Testimonial Statement”, Hsien-Ying Shine Chen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

December 8, 2010: Uphold Proposition 8, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Uphold Proposition 8“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Religion: How To Stay Out Of Court, Kenneth Akers, Sara Rotramel, Jorge Wellmann

Parameters of Law in Student Affairs and Higher Education (CNS 670)

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, it reads that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This single sentence, the Establishment Clause, is the backbone of religious freedom in the United States, and with its several annotations it has given shape and breadth to the concept of religion in America, more specifically our topic, i.e. …

December 5, 2010: Seeking Common Ground: A Secular Statement, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Seeking Common Ground: A Secular Statement“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

From One [Expletive] Policy To The Next: The Fcc's Regulation Of "Fleeting Expletives" And The Supreme Court's Response, Brandon J. Almas

Federal Communications Law Journal

After the broadcast of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, during which the lead singer from U2 uttered an expletive on national television, the FCC revisited its prior policy on the use of expletives on the airwaves and declared, for the first time, that "fleeting expletives" are offensive according to community standards and are therefore finable. In a lawsuit filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Fox Television Stations, Inc. along with a number of other broadcasters argued that the FCC's new policy was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Second …

Examining The Fcc's Indecency Regulations In Light Of Today's Technology, Elizabeth H. Steele

Federal Communications Law Journal

Indecency regulations promulgated by the FCC used to be effective, but today's technological advances call those regulations into question. With the prevalence of digital video recorders and the availability of television shows on the Internet, children have unprecedented access to material broadcast at all times of day. As a result, the "safe harbor" rationale restricting the broadcast of indecent material no longer makes sense. A move toward deregulation is the most logical step to take, as it would prevent any First Amendment violations and would allow the networks freedom to broadcast material that the public may be interested in without …

Judges Playing Jury: Constitutional Conflicts In Deciding Fair Use On Summary Judgment, Ned Snow

Faculty Publications

Issues of fair use in copyright cases are usually decided at summary judgment. But it was not always so. For well over a century, juries routinely decided these issues. The law recognized that fair use issues were highly subjective and thereby inherently factual — unfit for summary disposition by a judge. Today, however, all this has been forgotten. Judges are characterizing factual issues as purely legal so that fair use may be decided at summary judgment. Even while judges acknowledge that reasonable minds may disagree on these issues, they characterize the issues as legal, preventing them from ever reaching a …

Breaking The Dress Code: Protecting Transgender Students, Their Identities, And Their Rights., Zenobia V. Harris

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract Forthcoming.

Re-Examining Customary International Law And The Federal Courts: An Introduction, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

Legal scholars have debated intensely the role of customary international law in the American federal system. The debate involves serious questions surrounding the United States's constitutional structure, foreign relations, and human rights. Despite an impressive body of scholarship, the debate has stood at an impasse in recent years, without either side garnering a consensus. This symposium–Re-examining Customary International Law and the Federal Courts–aspires to help advance the debate over the status of customary international law in the federal courts.

The symposium received thoughtful and constructive contributions from Professors Curtis A. Bradley, Bradford R. Clark, Andrew Kent, Carlos M. Vizquez, and …

The Political Branches And The Law Of Nations, Bradford R. Clark, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court went out of its way to follow background rules of the law of nations, particularly the law of state-state relations. As we have recently argued, the Court followed the law of nations because adherence to such law preserved the constitutional prerogatives of the political branches to conduct foreign relations and decide momentous questions of war and peace. Although we focused primarily on the extent to which the Constitution obligated courts to follow the law of nations in the early republic, the explanation we offered rested on an important, …

Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent scholarship in political science and law challenges the view that judicial review in the United States poses what Alexander Bickel famously called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." Although courts do regularly invalidate state and federal action on constitutional grounds, they rarely depart substantially from the median of public opinion. When they do so depart, if public opinion does not eventually come in line with the judicial view, constitutional amendment, changes in judicial personnel, and/or changes in judicial doctrine typically bring judicial understandings closer to public opinion. But if the modesty of courts dissolves Bickel's worry, it raises a distinct one: Are …

Impeachment And Assassination, Josh Chafetz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 1998, the conservative provocateur Ann Coulter made waves when she wrote that President Clinton should be either impeached or assassinated. Coulter was roundly - and rightly - condemned for suggesting that the murder of the President might be justified, but her conceptual linking of presidential impeachment and assassination was not entirely unfounded. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin had made the same linkage over two hundred years earlier, when he noted at the Constitutional Convention that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal - impeachment - would be preferable. …

Presidential Succession: The Art Of The Possible, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

I am deeply honored that John D. Feerick invited me to come back to Fordham University School of Law and appear in this splendid conference. Yet I hasten to say that, when it comes to presidential succession, John Feerick and Joel K. Goldstein are tough acts to follow. Indeed, in an otherwise wonderfully organized conference, the line of succession here is flawed. I suppose I should declare myself unqualified to follow these experts on presidential succession! I shall bring the perspective of the constitutional theory generalist to bear on the questions framed for our panel.

Collective Action Federalism: A General Theory Of Article I, Section 8, Robert D. Cooter, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The Framers of the United States Constitution wrote Article I, Section 8 in order to address some daunting collective action problems facing the young nation. They especially wanted to protect the states from military warfare by foreigners and from commercial warfare against one another. The states acted individually when they needed to act collectively, and Congress lacked power under the Articles of Confederation to address these problems. Section 8 thus authorized Congress to promote the “general Welfare” of the United States by tackling many collective action problems that the states could not solve on their own.

Subsequent interpretations of Section …

Dodging A Bullet: Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago And The Limits Of Progessive Originalism, Dale E. Ho

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in last term’s gun rights case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, punctured the conventional wisdom after District of Columbia v. Heller that “we are all originalists now.” Surprisingly, many progressive academics were disappointed. For “progressive originalists,” McDonald was a missed opportunity to overrule the Slaughter-House Cases and to revitalize the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In their view, such a ruling could have realigned progressive constitutional achievements with originalism and relieved progressives of the albatross of substantive due process, while also unlocking long-dormant constitutional text to serve as the source of new unenumerated …

Constantly Approximating Popular Sovereignty: Seven Fundamental Principles Of Constitutional Law, Wilson R. Huhn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Melendez-Diaz Dilemma: Virginia's Response, A Model To Follow, Anne Hampton Andrews

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.