Alabama Law Scholarly Commons - The University of Alabama
Not a member yet
1539 research outputs found
Sort by
States of union: family and change in the American constitutional order
No full textIn two canonical decisions of the 1920s--Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters--the Supreme Court announced that family (including certain relations within it) was an institution falling under the Constitution\u27s protective umbrella. Since then, proponents of family values have claimed that a timeless form of family--nuclear and biological--is crucial to the constitutional order. Mark Brandon\u27s new book, however, challenges these claims. Brandon addresses debates currently roiling America--the regulation of procreation, the roles of women, the education of children, divorce, sexuality, and the meanings of marriage. He also takes on claims of scholars who attribute modern change in family law to mid-twentieth-century Supreme Court decisions upholding privacy. He shows that the constitutional law of family has much deeper roots. Offering glimpses into American households across time, Brandon looks at the legal and constitutional norms that have aimed to govern those households and the lives within them. He argues that, well prior to the 1960s, the nature of families in America had been continually changing--especially during western expansion, but also in the founding era. He further contends that the monogamous nuclear family was codified only at the end of the nineteenth century as a response to Mormon polygamy, communal experiments, and Native American households. Brandon discusses the evolution of familial jurisprudence as applied to disputes over property, inheritance, work, reproduction, the status of women and children, the regulation of sex, and the legal limits to and constitutional significance of marriage. He shows how the Supreme Court\u27s famous decisions in the latter part of the twentieth century were largely responses to societal change, and he cites a wide range of cases that offer fresh insight into the ways the legal system responded to various forms of family life. More than a historical overview, the book also considers the development of same-sex marriage as a political and legal issue in our time. States of Union is a groundbreaking volume that explains how family came to be in the Constitution, what it has meant for family to be constitutionally significant, and what the implications of that significance are for the constitutional order and for families -- In two canonical decisions in 1920s, the Supreme Court announced that family was an institution possessing a constitutional status and that certain relations within family were constitutionally protected. Since then, family values has become a staple of American civic life as the polity roils over issues like the regulation of procreation, the roles of women, the education of children, divorce, domestic economy, sex, sexuality, and the meanings of marriage. Brandon is the first to explain how family came to be in the Constitution, what it has meant for family to be constitutionally significant, and what the implications of that significance have been (and continue to be) for the constitutional order and for familieshttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_books/1002/thumbnail.jp
More Vitiating Paradoxes: A Response to Steven D. Smith - and Smith A Discussion of Religious Freedom in America
Get PDFConstitutional Limitations on Punitive Damages: Ambiguous Effects and Inconsistent Justifications Note
Get PDFKiller ambition: a novel
No full textA mystery novel; Special Trials prosecutor Rachel Knight teams up with Detective Bailey Keller to investigate the death of a Hollywood director that has far-reaching ramifications throughout Tinseltownhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2014/1003/thumbnail.jp
The condor song
No full textnspired by the Sierra Club 1960’s battle with the Walt Disney company over a proposed ski resort in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, former attorney and best selling author, Darryl Nyznyk, brings captivating realism to this riveting new thriller.Sean Donovan lost everything: his wife, kids, job, and license to practice law. Abandoned by his wife, betrayed by a friend, and fired by his firm, it has taken thirteen years for Sean to come back, now barely eking out a living on minor cases while his former firm thrives.When Buck Anderson, renowned environmentalist from Sean’s hometown is murdered, Sean reunites with Buck’s niece at the old man’s funeral. She begs Sean to join the Sierra Club’s case to stop a major ski development by a Disney-type company, the very case on which Buck was working when he was killed. Sean agrees, but learns too late that his former firm represents the opposition with motives more sinister than their client’s ski development.THE CONDOR SONG is an environmental legal thriller set against California’s rugged Sierra Nevada Mountains in which a man lost to the world he thought he knew tries to find redemption in the face of impossible odds.https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2014/1011/thumbnail.jp
The Burgess boys: a novel
No full textHaunted by the freak accident that killed their father when they were children, Jim and Bob Burgess escaped from their Maine hometown of Shirley Falls for New York City as soon as they possibly could. Jim, a sleek, successful corporate lawyer, has belittled his bighearted brother their whole lives, and Bob, a Legal Aid attorney who idolizes Jim, has always taken it in stride. But their long-standing dynamic is upended when their sister, Susan—the Burgess sibling who stayed behind—urgently calls them home. Her lonely teenage son, Zach, has gotten himself into a world of trouble, and Susan desperately needs their help. And so the Burgess brothers return to the landscape of their childhood, where the long-buried tensions that have shaped and shadowed their relationship begin to surface in unexpected ways that will change them forever. With a rare combination of brilliant storytelling, exquisite prose, and remarkable insight into character, Elizabeth Strout has brought to life two deeply human protagonists whose struggles and triumphs will resonate with readers long after they turn the final page. Tender, tough-minded, loving, and deeply illuminating about the ties that bind us to family and home, The Burgess Boys is perhaps Elizabeth Strout’s most astonishing work of literary art.https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2014/1015/thumbnail.jp
To Say What the Law Is: Rules, Results, and the Dangers of Inferential Stare Decisis
Get PDFDoes stare decisis require future courts to follow the rules stated in a precedentsetting opinion Or must future courts merely reconcile their decisions with the ultimate result of the precedentsetting case It is widely assumed that a rulebased approach puts greater constraints on future courts but two recent Supreme Court decisions “ WalMart Stores Inc v Dukes and Ashcroft v Iqbal “ turn this conventional wisdom on its head In both cases what the Court said about the governing rules was not inherently controversial and would leave courts with considerable flexibility going forward But what the Court did in applying those rules “ the ultimate results in WalMart and Iqbal “ could be very destabilizing if stare decisis mandates consistency with those results in future casesThis article argues that the lawmaking content of a judicial decision should be only the rules that the court states in deciding the case To infer binding obligations from results alone creates a risk that “ as with WalMart and Iqbal “ future courts will be forced to intuit more radical legal changes than the precedentsetting court actually embraced Put simply a judicial decision should create binding law only to the extent that it says what the law is Unless and until new legal rules are declared whether by the judiciary in later cases or by legislation courts should be free to operate within the existing legal framework without being required to reconcile their decisions with the mere results of earlier one
Congress\u27s (Limited) Power to Represent Itself in Court
Get PDFScholars and jurists have long assumed that when the executive branch declines to defend a federal statute Congress may intervene in federal court to defend the law When invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act for example no Justice challenged the authority of the House of Representatives to defend federal laws in at least some circumstances At the same time in recent litigation over the Fast and Furious gunrunning case the Department of Justice asserted that the House could not go to court to enforce a subpoena against the executive We seek to challenge both claims We argue that Congress has the constitutional power to enforce subpoenas but not defend federal statutes in court Congressional defense of federal statutes violates two constitutional norms First except in certain specified situations none of which are applicable here the Constitution prohibits Congress or one of its components from having any role in the implementation of federal law Second unilateral defense by the House or the Senate violates the constitutional norm of bicameralism The Constitution does not authorize either chamber to speak on behalf of the Congress much less the United States in defense of federal law By contrast the Constitution gives each chamber considerable power to investigate wrongdoing by the executive and to conduct litigation growing out of such investigations • by for example enforcing subpoenas We believe that this limited congressional power to appear in court makes eminent sense The House and Senate counsel as currently constituted are poorly suited to defend their joint work product in court but are well situated to represent their respective institutions in other proceedings against the executive Furthermore this investigative power gives each chamber a powerful and often overlooked constitutional tool to do battle with the executiv