To make some comments on the conversation between Drum and Yglesias (and Hertzberg): The case for the constitutionality of the filibuster starts from a compelling basis: Article I specifies that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Against this, Kevin makes an argument from structural inference: “The fact that certain types of legislation […]
Tag: constitutional interpretation
I don’t necessary agree with every nuance — to say that law isn’t determinate is different than saying that there is “no law” — but I’m still gratified to see
I wrote a little while ago about the exclusionary rule in Canada. As Mckingford recently noted in comments, with respect to the case that was the centerpiece of the Liptak article, the Supreme Court o
The State Secrets Privilege has been receiving an enormous amount of attention lately, mainly in connection with the Obama administration’s invocation of the privilege in the Jeppesen case. This invocation, which recalled similar invocations on the part of the Bush administration, incurred a substantial amount of criticism from civil libertarians and critics of Bush administration […]
Some of the nation’s foremost constitutional scholars have apparently decided to weigh in on the tax plan passed in the House: O’DONNELL (3/19/09): You know, this is, this was a brilliant trap
It probably would not shock you to know that under the Bush administration the Forest Service sold timber for logging without the legally required notice, comment and appeal provisions because of a re
While as most if you know I certainly agree with David RePass’s general hostility to the filibuster, some of his specific arguments here are problematic. His conclusion — that the solution to the problem of adding yet another onerous supermajority requirement to a constitutional order that already has too many veto points is to force […]
As was widely expected, the Supreme Court today that Pleasant Grove, Utah’s unwillingness to display a monument erected by the Summum did not violate the religious group’s free speech righ
My position on the Senate’s authority to refuse to seat Roland Burris appears to be in conflict with several of the legal scholars I most admire (cf. Tushnet, Balkin, and Amar, but see also Levi
Via LP, Josh Marshall’s argument on why Senate Dems need to protect the filibuster is just a touch underspecified: It is just bad practice — especially in the face of the last eight years — for numerical majorities not only to use the power of their numbers in straight up votes but to change the […]
Steven Calabresi waxes hysterical and ludicrously implausible: If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional
Starring Wilbur Hackett as Antonin Scalia. Bonus footage: a new movie about Bush v. Gore, featuring Nelson Emerson as the Republican Party and Denis Morel as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.