Alabama Law Scholarly Commons - The University of Alabama
Not a member yet
1539 research outputs found
Sort by
Deconstructing Deem and Pass: A Constitutional Analysis of the Enactment of Bills by Implication
Get PDFSince 1933, the U.S. House of Representatives has maintained a procedure, the self-executing rule, that permits a single floor vote to pass multiple independent bills. Using this procedure, the House can pass a bill and, at the same time, deem passed entirely separate bills via a single floor vote. Some legal scholars have argued that this procedure is constitutionally unobjectionable, provided that members of the House clearly understand the legislative effects, whether singular or plural, of a particular vote. Others, however, have argued that the device violates the Constitution because the House and Senate do not vote on the same question. Careful consideration of the relevant constitutional text and legislative history reveals that the question does not have an easy or obvious answer. Perhaps surprisingly, the Constitution does not speak with clarity on whether a single floor vote may pass multiple, separate bills, nor does the Constitution\u27s legislative history provide any clear guidance on this question. Instead, the answer depends on whether one generally embraces formalism or functionalism in one\u27s separation of powers analysis. From a formalist perspective, the House and Senate must not only adopt the same identical text, but must also vote on the same question. From a functionalist perspective, however, the precise procedure used to approve the text should not matter so long as both the House and Senate take political responsibility for adopting a particular statutory text. Given the relatively weak reasons that undergird the House\u27s use of the deem-and-pass procedure-namely a desire to avoid political responsibility for unpopular legislation by rendering electoral accountability more difficult-the formalist position has much to recommend it
Speak of the devil
No full textA Touchstone book. ; Prosecutor Anna Curtis, assigned to bring a terrifying man known as Diablo, who led a vicious attack on a brothel, to justice, calls into question everything she believes about good and evil when her investigation leads her to one of America\u27s most brutal street gangs and a devastating discoveryhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2014/1009/thumbnail.jp
Crosstown park
No full textSubtitle from cover; On a flight from New York to Houston, Alex Stockton, a successful young lawyer, meets Reverend Morse. He is in dire need of a lawyer to represent one of his foster home house parents, Jose Gonzales. The Reverend believes that Jose was falsely accused of sexually molesting Chris Jackson, a teenage boy, in Crosstown Park. He convinces Alex that Chris Jackson made the allegation against Jose because his uncle, Voodoo, is seeking revenge against the Reverend for disrupting his illegal drug and prostitution activities. Alex\u27s instincts take over and her long buried memories of her foster home background surface. Before the plane lands she has taken Jose\u27s case, pro bono. She has six weeks to discover what happened in Crosstown Park between Jose and Chris. She teams up with Nic Wright, a handsome former cop-turned-security-company-owner, to save Jose and the poor children at Shepherd\u27s Cottages. As the case progresses, Alex\u27s life and perfect trial record is threatened. Not to mention her lifelong dream of becoming a judge. What she really needs is a witness...--Coverhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2014/1001/thumbnail.jp
Preamble Sovereignty and Religious Liberty Book Review: Democratic Politics: Principles and Practice
Get PDF
Further Standing Lessons
Get PDFThe Article III standing doctrine ” with its three requirements of injury in fact causation and redressability ” is often criticized as a restriction that prevents liberal but not conservative plaintiffs from proceeding in the federal courts As I have recently shown however 87 IND LJ 551 2012 standing doctrine has increasingly been an issue in many cases involving conservative litigants in challenges to the landmark federal healthcare law and to conservative appellants defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California\u27s constitutional ban on marriage between samesex couples We now have Supreme Court decisions in those cases and the standing analyses ” or lack thereof in the healthcare case ” create problems for standing doctrine more generall
The Exceptions Clause as a Structural Safeguard
Get PDFScholars have long treated the Exceptions Clause of Article III as a serious threat to the Supreme Court\u27s central constitutional function establishing definitive and uniform rules of federal law This Article argues that scholars have overlooked an important function of the Clause Congress has repeatedly used its broad exceptions power to facilitate not to undermine the Supreme Court\u27s constitutional role Drawing on insights from social science this Article asserts that Congress has an incentive to use its control over federal jurisdiction to promote the Court\u27s role in settling disputed federal questions Notably this argument has considerable historical support When the Supreme Court\u27s mandatory appellate docket grew to the point that it was unmanageable for a single tribunal Congress responded by exercising its authority under the Exceptions Clause Congress made exceptions to the Court\u27s mandatory appellate jurisdiction and replaced it with discretionary review via writs of certiorari ” precisely so that the Court could concentrate its limited resources on resolving important federal questions Thus contrary to conventional wisdom Congress has often used its broad exceptions power to safeguard the Supreme Court\u27s role in the constitutional schem
Law\u27s Violence: Derrick Bell\u27s Next Article Challenging Authority: A Symposium Honoring Derrick Bell
Get PDF
