DOCSLIB.ORG

Hereby the Court Has Abdicated Its Role in Choice-Of-Law Jurisprudence, While Aggressively Policing the Boundaries of State Sovereign Immunity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hereby the Court Has Abdicated Its Role in Choice-Of-Law Jurisprudence, While Aggressively Policing the Boundaries of State Sovereign Immunity Vol. 4 4 , No. HARVARD JOURNAL 1 of HARVARD LAW & PUBLIC POLICY VOLUME 44, NUMBER 1 WINTER 2021 THE STRUCTURAL CONSTITUTION IN J OURNAL THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY THE THIRTY-NINTH ANNUAL FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL STUDENT SYMPOSIUM ON LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY—2020 The Hon. Paul D. Clement Lynn A. Baker of Keith Whittington John Yoo LAW Roderick M. Hills William Baude & ARTICLES “CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE”: PUBLIC THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND PERSISTENT IMMIGRATION LAW DOCTRINE Craig S. Lerner HAT IS AESAR S HAT IS OD S W C ’ , W G ’ : FUNDAMENTAL PUBLIC POLICY FOR CHURCHES POLICY Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer & Zachary B. Pohlman IS ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNLAWFUL? Alexander I. Platt ESSAY JOHN ADAMS, LEGAL REPRESENTATION, AND THE “CANCEL CULTURE” Secretary Eugene Scalia Winter NOTES ARENS ATRIAE AND TATE TTORNEYS ENERAL P P S A G : 202 A SOLUTION TO OUR NATION'S OPIOID LITIGATION? 1 JURISDICTIONAL AVOIDANCE: RECTIFYING THE LOWER COURTS’ MISAPPLICATION OF STEEL CO. Pages 1 to 401 HARVARD JOURNAL of LAW & PUBLIC POLICY VOLUME 44, NUMBER 1 WINTER 2021 THE STRUCTURAL CONSTITUTION IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY THE THIRTY-NINTH ANNUAL FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL STUDENT SYMPOSIUM ON LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY—2020 THE FEDERALIST NO. 48, THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND “THE IMPETUOUS VORTEX” The Honorable Paul D. Clement .................................................. 1 THE ROLE OF NORMS IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER Keith Whittington ...................................................................... 17 KEEPING THE COMPACT CLAUSE IRRELEVANT Roderick M. Hills ....................................................................... 29 RETHINKING THE SENATE Lynn A. Baker ............................................................................ 39 THE PROPER ROLE OF THE SENATE John Yoo ..................................................................................... 47 CONSTITUTIONALIZING INTERSTATE RELATIONS: THE TEMPTATION OF THE DARK SIDE William Baude ............................................................................ 57 ARTICLES “CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE”: THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND PERSISTENT IMMIGRATION LAW DOCTRINE Craig S. Lerner .......................................................................... 71 WHAT IS CAESAR’S, WHAT IS GOD’S: FUNDAMENTAL PUBLIC POLICY FOR CHURCHES Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer & Zachary B. Pohlman .......................... 145 IS ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNLAWFUL? Alexander I. Platt. .................................................................... 239 ESSAY JOHN ADAMS, LEGAL REPRESENTATION, AND THE “CANCEL CULTURE” Secretary Eugene Scalia ........................................................... 333 NOTES PARENS PATRIAE AND STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL: A SOLUTION TO OUR NATION'S OPIOID LITIGATION? Nick Cordova ............................................................................ 339 JURISDICTIONAL AVOIDANCE: RECTIFYING THE LOWER COURTS’ MISAPPLICATION OF STEEL CO. Brian A. Kulp ........................................................................... 374 HARVARD JOURNAL of LAW & PUBLIC POLICY Editor-in-Chief MAX BLOOM Articles Chair Deputy Editor-in-Chief Managing Editors JASON MUEHLHOFF JAY SCHAEFER JOHN KETCHAM STUART SLAYTON Senior Articles Editors Executive Editors JOHN ACTON PAYTON ALEXANDER Deputy Managing Editors DAVIS CAMPBELL JOHN BAILEY CATHERINE COLE TYLER DOBBS JAMIN DOWDY JACOB HARCAR JESSICA TONG ROBERT FARMER ALEXANDER KHAN SEANHENRY VAN DYKE ZACHARY GROUEV KEVIN LIE Articles Editors ALEXANDER GUERIN Notes Editors ALAN CHAN JOHN MORRISON JASON ALTABET JONATHAN DEWITT ALLY MUSHKA NICK CORDOVA ALEX RIDDLE PHIL HAUNSCHILD Chief Financial Officer ARIA URYN OLIVER ROBERTS M H COOPER GODFREY ELI NACHMANY AARON WARD HUNTER PEARL ANNIE WILT Deputy Chief Financial Officer BRYAN POELLOT VINCENT WU ROSS HILDABRAND DANA SCHNEIDER Website Manager ASHLEY VAUGHAN WILLIAM FLANAGAN ISAAC WYANT Senior Editors KEVIN BAGNALL CHRISTIAN HECHT JACK ROBBINS KATHRYN BARRAGAN COURTNEY JONES AUDRA ROBITAILLE NOAH BENSON PRANAV MULPUR BEN SALVATORE AUGUST BRUSCHINI ELI NACHMANY MAX SCHREIBER ALAN CHAN HUNTER PEARL LAURA SOUNDY WILLIAM FLANAGAN JORDAN PECK DUNN WESTHOFF MARC FRANCIS BRYAN POELLOT ISAAC WYANT CHRIS HALL BRETT RAFFISH JUSTIN YIM PHIL HAUNSCHILD JACOB RICHARDS Editors PATRICK CESPEDES JACK KIEFFABER MICHAEL SCHNEEKLOTH KYLE EISWALD JOEL MALKIN OWEN SMITHERMAN ROGAN FENG JEREMY ORLIAN MIKHAEL SMITS MARIO FIANDEIRO ANTHONY PERICOLO ARI SPITZER JACK FOLEY ANASTASIA PYRINIS MATTHEW STEINER ETHAN HARPER SPENCER SABEY DAVID TYE JOHN HEO NASH SANTHANAM ZACH WINN Founded by E. Spencer Abraham & Steven J. Eberhard BOARD OF ADVISORS E. Spencer AbrahaM, Founder Steven G. Calabresi Douglas R. Cox Jennifer W. Elrod Charles Fried Douglas H. Ginsburg Orrin Hatch Jonathan R. Macey Michael W. McConnell DiarMuid F. O’Scannlain JereMy A. Rabkin Hal S. Scott David B. Sentelle Bradley Smith Jerry E. SMith THE HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY RECEIVES NO FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL OR HARVARD UNIVERSITY. IT IS FUNDED EXCLUSIVELY BY SUBSCRIPTION REVENUES AND PRIVATE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS. The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. ISSN 0193-4872. Nonprofit postage prepaid at Lincoln, Nebraska and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. Yearly subscription rates: United States, $55.00; foreign, $75.00. Subscriptions are renewed automatically unless a request for discontinuance is received. The Journal welcomes the submission of articles and book reviews. Each manuscript should be typed double-spaced, preferably in Times New Roman 12-point typeface. Authors submit manuscripts electronically to [email protected], preferably prepared using Microsoft Word. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Society or of its officers, directors, editors, members, or staff. Unless otherwise indicated, all editors are students at the Harvard Law School. Copyright © 2021 by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc. PREFACE The University of Michigan Federalist Society chapter hosted the Thirty-Ninth Annual National Student Symposium, albeit remotely, on March 13th and 14th of 2020. The topic, which was determined in a more tranquil era, proved to be prescient: federalism and the relationships among the branches of government. From the impeachment proceedings in early 2020 to the debates about congressional and state power during the COVID-19 crisis, judges, academics, and the public engaged with issues of structural constitutional law throughout the year. The Federalist Society’s Symposium hosted four panels on these issues, during which some of the country’s finest legal and judicial minds debated the role of norms in our constitutional system, the proper place of the Senate, and constitutional boundaries on interstate relations, among other topics. We have the honor of presenting six Essays from the Symposium in this Issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. In the Symposium’s Keynote Address, former United States Solicitor General Paul D. Clement discusses the Madisonian theory of separation of powers, and posits that an increasingly unassertive Congress—far from the “impetuous vortex” that Hamilton and Madison feared—threatens our model of government. In the following essays, Professor Keith Whittington discusses the role of norms in our constitutional order, and Professor Roderick M. Hills makes a case for keeping the Compact Clause entirely irrelevant. Next, Professors Lynn A. Baker and John Yoo discuss the proper role of the Senate: Professor Baker argues that it tends to erode the federalist system by promoting the power of small-population ii states over large-population states; Professor Yoo contends that the Senate plays a healthy role in America’s system of government as a force for deliberation and compromise. Finally, the Symposium essays conclude with a piece by Professor William Baude, in which he criticizes the Supreme Court’s approach to interstate relations, whereby the Court has abdicated its role in choice-of-law jurisprudence, while aggressively policing the boundaries of state sovereign immunity. We are also pleased to present three Articles addressing issues of constitutional and administrative law. The first Article of this Issue, by Professor Craig S. Lerner, addresses the phrase “crimes involving moral turpitude,” which has long been used in the immigration laws as a trigger for deportation. Professor Lerner reviews the long history of the term and then defends the phrase against attack from both the academy and the judiciary. In the next Article, Professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer and Zachary B. Pohlman discuss the application of the Court’s 1983 decision in Bob Jones University v. United States, which suggested that religious organizations may lose their tax-exempt status if they engage in activities “contrary to fundamental public policy,” and which has renewed currency today given debates over religious policies regarding sexual orientation. Drawing on the work of theologian Abraham Kuyper, the authors argue that churches should not generally be subject to the doctrine, although they should still lose their tax benefits if they engage in significant criminal activity. In our last Article, Professor Alexander I. Platt examines the Securities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cancel Culture: Posthuman Hauntologies in Digital Rhetoric and the Latent Values of Virtual Community Networks
    CANCEL CULTURE: POSTHUMAN HAUNTOLOGIES IN DIGITAL RHETORIC AND THE LATENT VALUES OF VIRTUAL COMMUNITY NETWORKS By Austin Michael Hooks Heather Palmer Rik Hunter Associate Professor of English Associate Professor of English (Chair) (Committee Member) Matthew Guy Associate Professor of English (Committee Member) CANCEL CULTURE: POSTHUMAN HAUNTOLOGIES IN DIGITAL RHETORIC AND THE LATENT VALUES OF VIRTUAL COMMUNITY NETWORKS By Austin Michael Hooks A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master of English The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, Tennessee August 2020 ii Copyright © 2020 By Austin Michael Hooks All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT This study explores how modern epideictic practices enact latent community values by analyzing modern call-out culture, a form of public shaming that aims to hold individuals responsible for perceived politically incorrect behavior via social media, and cancel culture, a boycott of such behavior and a variant of call-out culture. As a result, this thesis is mainly concerned with the capacity of words, iterated within the archive of social media, to haunt us— both culturally and informatically. Through hauntology, this study hopes to understand a modern discourse community that is bound by an epideictic framework that specializes in the deconstruction of the individual’s ethos via the constant demonization and incitement of past, current, and possible social media expressions. The primary goal of this study is to understand how these practices function within a capitalistic framework and mirror the performativity of capital by reducing affective human interactions to that of a transaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert L. Tsai
    ROBERT L. TSAI Professor of Law American University The Washington College of Law 4300 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016 202.274.4370 [email protected] roberttsai.com EDUCATION J.D. Yale Law School, 1997 The Yale Law Journal, Editor, Volume 106 Yale Law and Policy Review, Editor, Volume 12 Honorable Mention for Oral Argument, Harlan Fiske Stone Prize Finals, 1996 Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals, Board of Directors Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic B.A. University of California, Los Angeles, History & Political Science, magna cum laude, 1993 Phi Beta Kappa Highest Departmental Honors (conferred by thesis committee) Carey McWilliams Award for Best Honors Thesis: Building the City on the Hilltop: A Socio-Political Study of Early Christianity ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS Temple University, Beasley School of Law Clifford Scott Green Chair and Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law, Fall 2019 Courses: Fourteenth Amendment History and Practice, Presidential Leadership Over Individual Rights American University, The Washington College of Law Professor of Law, May 2009—Present Associate Professor of Law (with tenure), June 2008—May 2009 Courses: Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, Jurisprudence, Presidential Leadership and Individual Rights, The First Amendment University of Georgia Law School Visiting Professor, Semester in Washington Program, Spring & Fall 2012 Course: The American Presidency and Individual Rights University of Oregon School of Law Associate Professor of Law (with tenure), 2007-08 Assistant Professor, 2002-07 2008 Lorry I. Lokey University Award for Faculty Excellence (via nomination & peer review) 2007 Orlando John Hollis Faculty Teaching Award Courses: Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, Free Speech, Equality, Religious Freedom, Civil Rights Litigation Yale University, Department of History Teaching Fellow, 1996, 1997 CLERKSHIPS The Honorable Hugh H.
    [Show full text]
  • Dead Precedents Riley T
    Notre Dame Law Review Online Volume 93 | Issue 1 Article 1 8-2017 Dead Precedents Riley T. Svikhart Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation 93 Notre Dame L. Rev. Online 1 (2018) This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review Online by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY DEAD PRECEDENTS Riley T. Svikhart* INTRODUCTION Shaun McCutcheon’s was the “next big campaign finance case to go before the Supreme Court.”1 When the Alabama GOP warned the conservative businessman that his 2010 federal campaign contributions might soon exceed a congressionally imposed limit, he decided to “take a stand.”2 Together, McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC)—which “wish[ed] to receive the contributions that McCutcheon and similarly situated individuals would like to make” in the absence of such aggregate contribution limits3—challenged the responsible statutory regime4 on First Amendment grounds and attracted national attention en route to a victory before the Supreme Court.5 But while McCutcheon and the RNC prevailed in their case, they failed in another noteworthy regard—Chief Justice Roberts’s controlling opinion declined their request to squarely overrule a relevant portion of the landmark campaign © 2017 Riley T. Svikhart. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and distribute copies of this Essay in any format, at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review Online, and includes this provision and copyright notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Confirms Kirkland Alum to Claims Court - Law360
    9/24/2020 Senate Confirms Kirkland Alum To Claims Court - Law360 Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Senate Confirms Kirkland Alum To Claims Court By Julia Arciga Law360 (September 22, 2020, 2:46 PM EDT) -- A Maryland-based former Kirkland & Ellis LLP associate will become a judge of the Court of Federal Claims for a 15-year term, after the U.S. Senate on Tuesday confirmed him by a 66-27 vote. Edward H. Meyers is a partner at Stein Mitchell Beato & Missner LLP, litigating bid protests, breach of contract disputes and copyright infringement. While at the firm, he served as counsel for one of the collection agencies in a 2018 consolidated protest action challenging the U.S. Department of Education's solicitation for student loan debt collection services. He clerked with Federal Claims Judge Loren A. Smith between 2005 and 2006 before spending six years as a Kirkland associate, where he worked as a civil litigator handling securities, government contracts, construction, insurance and statutory claims. He earned his bachelor's degree from Vanderbilt University and his law degree summa cum laude from Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law — where he joined the Federalist Society and still remains a member. Judiciary committee members Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., had raised questions about Meyers' Federalist Society affiliation before Tuesday's vote, and he confirmed that he did speak to fellow members throughout his nomination process.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Cancel Culture' Doesn't Stifle Debate, but It Does Challenge the Old Order Billy Bragg
    'Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order Billy Bragg Speech is only free when everyone has a voice – that’s why young people are angry Outside Broadcasting House in London, the BBC has erected a statue to one of its former employees, George Orwell. The author leans forward, hand on hip, as if to make a telling point. Carved into the wall beside him is a quote from the preface of Animal Farm: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” It’s a snappy slogan that fits neatly into a tweet, but whenever I walk past this effigy of the English writer that I most admire, it makes me cringe. Surely the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four would understand that people don’t want to hear that 2+2=5? For Orwell’s quote is not a defence of liberty; it’s a demand for licence, and has become a foundational slogan for those who wilfully misconstrue one for the other. Over the past decade, the right to make inflammatory statements has become a hot button issue for the reactionary right, who have constructed tropes such as political correctness and virtue signalling to enable them to police the limits of social change while portraying themselves as victims of an organised assault on liberty itself. The latest creation in their war against accountability is “cancel culture”, an ill-defined notion that takes in corporate moves to recognise structural racism, the toppling of statues, social media bullying, public shaming and other diverse attempts to challenge the status quo.
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism and the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment
    Copyright 2013 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 107, No. 4 ORIGINALISM AND THE RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Thomas B. Colby ABSTRACT—Originalists have traditionally based the normative case for originalism primarily on principles of popular sovereignty: the Constitution owes its legitimacy as higher law to the fact that it was ratified by the American people through a supermajoritarian process. As such, it must be interpreted according to the original meaning that it had at the time of ratification. To give it another meaning today is to allow judges to enforce a legal rule that was never actually embraced and enacted by the people. Whatever the merits of this argument in general, it faces particular hurdles when applied to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was a purely partisan measure, drafted and enacted entirely by Republicans in a rump Reconstruction Congress in which the Southern states were denied representation; it would never have made it through Congress had all of the elected Senators and Representatives been permitted to vote. And it was ratified not by the collective assent of the American people, but rather at gunpoint. The Southern states had been placed under military rule, and were forced to ratify the Amendment—which they despised—as a condition of ending military occupation and rejoining the Union. The Amendment can therefore claim no warrant to democratic legitimacy through original popular sovereignty. It was added to the Constitution despite its open failure to obtain the support of the necessary supermajority of the American people.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2017 Remarks at the National Rifle Association Leadership Forum in Atlanta, Georgia April 28
    Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2017 Remarks at the National Rifle Association Leadership Forum in Atlanta, Georgia April 28, 2017 Thank you, Chris, for that kind introduction and for your tremendous work on behalf of our Second Amendment. Thank you very much. I want to also thank Wayne LaPierre for his unflinching leadership in the fight for freedom. Wayne, thank you very much. Great. I'd also like to congratulate Karen Handel on her incredible fight in Georgia Six. The election takes place on June 20. And by the way, on primaries, let's not have 11 Republicans running for the same position, okay? [Laughter] It's too nerve-shattering. She's totally for the NRA, and she's totally for the Second Amendment. So get out and vote. She's running against someone who's going to raise your taxes to the sky, destroy your health care, and he's for open borders—lots of crime—and he's not even able to vote in the district that he's running in. Other than that, I think he's doing a fantastic job, right? [Laughter] So get out and vote for Karen. Also, my friend—he's become a friend—because there's nobody that does it like Lee Greenwood. Wow. [Laughter] Lee's anthem is the perfect description of the renewed spirit sweeping across our country. And it really is, indeed, sweeping across our country. So, Lee, I know I speak for everyone in this arena when I say, we are all very proud indeed to be an American.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture Wars in the UK: How the Public Understand the Debate
    Culture wars in the UK: how the public understand the debate Bobby Duffy, Kirstie Hewlett, George Murkin, Rebecca Benson, Rachel Hesketh, Ben Page, Gideon Skinner and Glenn Gottfried May 2021 Culture wars in the UK How media discussion of “culture wars” has exploded There has been an explosion in UK media Number of articles mentioning “culture wars” in UK newspapers, by those referencing the UK or other countries coverage of culture wars in recent years Articles referencing UK Articles not referencing UK US presidential election There has been a huge surge in media coverage mentioning “culture wars” in recent years, with 808 articles published in 600 UK newspapers talking about culture wars anywhere in the world in 2020 – up from 106 in 2015. Even more strikingly, the number of articles focusing on the 500 existence or nature of culture wars in the UK has gone from just 21 in 2015 to 534 in 2020. When the term first appeared in UK newspapers, most articles related to culture wars in the US – and the influence 400 of the US continued to be visible in the 2000s, with spikes in the number of reports mentioning culture wars following the American presidential election cycle. 300 Since the mid-2000s, the idea of UK specific culture wars began to gain some attention. And since 2016, coverage of No. of articles the UK culture wars has taken off – surpassing the number 200 of references to other countries in 2019 and becoming a term that has entered the journalistic vernacular to describe a wide range of cultural divides in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • The Department of Justice and the Limits of the New Deal State, 1933-1945
    THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE LIMITS OF THE NEW DEAL STATE, 1933-1945 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Maria Ponomarenko December 2010 © 2011 by Maria Ponomarenko. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/ms252by4094 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David Kennedy, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Richard White, Co-Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Mariano-Florentino Cuellar Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii Acknowledgements My principal thanks go to my adviser, David M.
    [Show full text]
  • SEXUAL ORIENTATION and GENDER IDENTITY October 2, 2019 10336 ICLE: State Bar Series
    SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY October 2, 2019 10336 ICLE: State Bar Series Wednesday, October 2, 2019 SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY 6 CLE Hours Including | 1 Professionalism Hour Copyright © 2019 by the Institute of Continuing Legal Education of the State Bar of Georgia. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of ICLE. The Institute of Continuing Legal Education’s publications are intended to provide current and accurate information on designated subject matter. They are off ered as an aid to practicing attorneys to help them maintain professional competence with the understanding that the publisher is not rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice. Attorneys should not rely solely on ICLE publications. Attorneys should research original and current sources of authority and take any other measures that are necessary and appropriate to ensure that they are in compliance with the pertinent rules of professional conduct for their jurisdiction. ICLE gratefully acknowledges the eff orts of the faculty in the preparation of this publication and the presentation of information on their designated subjects at the seminar. The opinions expressed by the faculty in their papers and presentations are their own and do not necessarily refl ect the opinions of the Institute of Continuing Legal Education, its offi cers, or employees. The faculty is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgetown University Law School, Washington, D. C., May, No
    VOL. 3 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, WASHINGTON, D. C., MAY, NO. 1 Father Lucey Completes 20 Years Georgetown Student Bar Association A s Regent of Law School Inaugurates Successful Program Law School Has Made Great Strides Under His Direction The Student Bar Association of Georgetown University held its first annual election in October, 1950. The new all-student organization is affiliated By William Smith, ’53 with the American Law Student Association. Elected to lead the organization were: Roger M. Dougherty, AT. </., ’51, President; ( harles F. Crimi, A. I ., ’52, Vice President; Robert E. McGannon, Mo., *51, Secretary; and William J. McDonald, N. Y., ’52, Treasurer. This first regular election was preceded by many months of work by temporary committees composed of law students. In May, 1.950, the chief justices of each law club in the law school met to discuss the possibility of forming a student organization here at Georgetown Law School. The pro­ posed organization was to function along the line of similar student organiza­ tions in many of the major law schools of the country. With the approval of the Regent of the Law School, the plans for the proposed organization began with the election of a student committee to form a definite organization during the summer. Donald M. Walsh, N. J., ’52, was chosen chairman pro tempore of a LAW JOURNAL TO HOLD committee composed of Richard L. Braun, Calif., ’51, George J. Mei- BANQUET AT WILLARD burger, Mo., \52, William I. McCol- The Georgetown Law Journal will lough, Mi7.s\s*., ’52, and Harry H.
    [Show full text]
  • The Obvious Constitutionality of Health Care Reform1
    ANDREW KOPPELMAN Bad News for Mail Robbers: The Obvious Constitutionality of Health Care Reform1 The Supreme Court may be headed for its most dramatic intervention in American politics—and most flagrant abuse of its power—since Bush v. Gore.2 Challenges to President Obama’s health care law3 have started to work their way toward the Court and have been sustained by two Republican-appointed district judges.4 1. A version of this Essay was presented at “Healthcare Reform: The Law and Its Implications,” a seminar of the American Health Lawyers Association, held in Chicago on December 6, 2010. This Essay consolidates and adds to arguments presented in an earlier series of blog posts. Andrew Koppelman, Can’t Think of Another One, BALKINIZATION (Dec. 14, 2010, 11:17 AM), http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/12/cant-think-of-another-one.html; Andrew Koppelman, Health Care Reform: The Broccoli Objection, BALKINIZATION (Jan. 19, 2011, 4:48 PM), http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/01/ health-care-reform-broccoli-objection.html; Andrew Koppelman, Non Sequiturs in the Florida Health Care Decision, BALKINIZATION (Feb. 2, 2011, 2:42 PM), http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/02/non-sequiturs-in-florida-health-care.html; Andrew Koppelman, The Virginia Court’s Bizarre Health Law Decision, BALKINIZATION (Dec. 13, 2010, 5:01 PM), http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/12/virginia-courts-bizarre-health-law.html. 2. 531 U.S. 98 (2000). For defenses of the modest proposition that the Supreme Court is not constitutionally authorized to appoint the President, see, for example, Laurence H. Tribe, eroG v. hsuB and Its Disguises: Freeing Bush v.
    [Show full text]