6,460 research outputs found
Book review: Freedom of Expression: A Critical Analysis. By Martin H. Redish ; Nimmer on Freedom of Speech: A Treatise on the Theory of the First Amendment. By Melville B. Nimmer.
No full textBook review: Freedom of Expression: A Critical Analysis. By Martin H. Redish. Charlottesville, Va.: The Michie
Company. 1984. Pp. xi, 276 ; Nimmer on Freedom of Speech: A Treatise on the Theory of the First Amendment. By Melville B. Nimmer. New York: Matthew Bender. 1984.
Pp. xv, 510. Reviewed by: Deborah Jones Merritt.Merritt, Deborah Jones. (1986). Book review: Freedom of Expression: A Critical Analysis. By Martin H. Redish ; Nimmer on Freedom of Speech: A Treatise on the Theory of the First Amendment. By Melville B. Nimmer.. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/164729
Panel I: In a Class by Itself: Has the Roberts Court Slammed the courthouse Door on Class Actions?
No full textPanel I: In a Class by Itself: Has the Roberts Court Slammed the courthouse Door on Class Actions?
Theane Evangelis, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Mary Kay Kane, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Richard Marcus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Jonathan Nash, Emory University School of Law
Martin H. Redish, Northwestern University School of La
Recommended from our members
Judicial Independence and the American Constitution ::A Democratic Paradox /
No full textThe Framers of the American Constitution took special pains to ensure that the governing principles of the republic were insulated from the reach of simple majorities. Only super-majoritarian amendments could modify these fundamental constitutional dictates. The Framers established a judicial branch shielded from direct majoritarian political accountability to protect and enforce these constitutional limits. Paradoxically, only a counter-majoritarian judicial branch could ensure the continued vitality of our representational form of government. This important lesson of the paradox of American democracy has been challenged and often ignored by office holders and legal scholars. Judicial Independence and the American Constitution provocatively defends the centrality of these special protections of judicial independence. Martin H. Redish explains how the nation's system of counter-majoritarian constitutionalism cannot survive absent the vesting of final powers of constitutional interpretation and enforcement in the one branch of government expressly protected by the Constitution from direct political accountability: the judicial branch. He uncovers how the current framework of American constitutional law has been unwisely allowed to threaten or undermine these core precepts of judicial independence
The Dormant Commerce Clause and the Constitutional Balance of Federalism
No full textThrough the passage of time, the dormant commerce clause doctrine has acquired a patina of legitimacy; the doctrine frequently is used by the judiciary to overturn state regulation of commerce. Professor Martin Redish and Shane Nugent argue that time alone cannot legitimize such actions by the courts, and that the Constitution provides no textual basis for the exercise of this authority. Moreover, they contend that the doctrine actually undermines the carefully structured federal balance embodied in the text. They further argue that nontextual rationales are flawed, and that jurisprudence based on the text of the Constitution can deal adequately with discriminatory state legislation currently overturned by reference to a dormant commerce clause
Due Process, Democracy, and the Regulatory State: A Response to Martin Redish and Victor Hiltner\u27s Adversary Democratic Due Process
No full textDue process protection is typically regarded as a human right, akin to free exercise of religion or the privilege against self-incrimination. In Adversary Democratic Due Process, Authors Martin H. Redish & Victor Hiltner argue that it has a deeper and more comprehensive significance.\u27 They view due process as a basic component of democracy, an essential element in our entire system of government. In this comment, I will endorse Authors Redish and Hiltner\u27s thesis and offer an additional perspective to support it. In addition, I agree with nearly all the implications they draw about specific applications of their thesis, but take issue with some of their conclusions about the application of the Due Process Clause in administrative settings. The genius of democracy, in Authors Redish and Hiltner\u27s view, is that it combines two seemingly opposite views of human beings. One is a hard-headed recognition that people are strongly motivated by self- interest and necessarily come into conflict with one another on this basis. The other is an aspirational view that people seek self-actualization and strive to achieve the common good for their society.\u27 Denying the first tendency is naive, denying the second is cynical, and denying either is reductionist
Legislative Courts, Administrative Agencies, and the Northern Pipeline Decision
No full textIn Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Courts because their judges lacked article III\u27s protections of salary and tenure. In so holding, the Court significantly altered the criteria for deciding what cases have to be heard by judges with article III protections. In this article, Professor Redish criticizes the criteria adopted by the Justices, and suggests alternative criteria which would better foster the values behind the independence protections of article III. In addition, he examines the implications of the various criteria for the continued use of administrative agencies as adjudicators of federal law
The Anti-Injunction Statute Reconsidered
No full textThe anti-injunction statute prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless such an injunction is expressly authorized by act of Congress, is necessary in aid of a federal court\u27s jurisdiction, or is necessary to protect or effectuate a federal judgment. In this article, Professor Redish examines the leading decisions interpreting the statute, and argues that the courts have construed the expressly authorized exception too expansively and the in aid exception too narrowly. He advocates adoption of a broader construction of the in aid of jurisdiction exception that would better accommodate the competing claims of state and federal courts to independence within our system of judicial federalism
Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial in Non-Article III Proceedings: A Study in Dysfunctional Constitutional Theory
No full textThe right to a jury trial in civil cases, as enumerated in the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, is an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, in this Article, Professor Redish and Mr. La Fave argue that the Supreme Court has failed to preserve this right when Congress has relegated claims to a non-Article III forum. Furthermore, they argue, the Court has done so without providing any basis in constitutional theory to justify such a relinquishment.
Professor Redish and Mr. La Fave first examine the Supreme Court\u27s interpretation of the Seventh Amendment in instances where Congress has remained silent on the issue of the availability of a jury trial. They proceed to examine the Court\u27s contrasting response when Congress has explicitly directed that adjudication be held in a non-Article III forum, without a jury. In an effort to explain the Court\u27s approach to Seventh Amendment interpretation, they advance several possible doctrinal models, none of which, in their view, satisfactorily explains the Court\u27s apparent deference to Congress\u27s decision not to allow a jury trial. They suggest that the only rational explanation for the Court\u27s current Seventh Amendment jurisprudence is functionalism: deferring to Congress\u27s determination that some social or political objective outweighs constitutional considerations. They conclude that such deference by the Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, is not only unprincipled, but that such a practice actually endangers the supremacy of the Constitution and undermines the judiciary as the countermajoritarian check on the majoritarian branches of government
Regulation and bank stability: Canada and the United States, 1870-1980
No full textCanada and the United States are probably as similar as any two countries in the world, but they have always had very different banking systems. First, the United States has had a unit banking system due to the restrictions on branch banking, which created many small banks. Canada, however, has always had unlimited branching, which led to the emergence of a few large nationwide banks. The author contends that, if one system performs better (in terms of stability and efficiency), this is due to their different regulatory system. Indeed, the two countries are different in terms of: 1) reserve requirements; 2) capital ratios; and 3) requirements to opening a new bank. When the United States has eliminated the barriers to interstate branching, U.S. banking will follow a route similar to that taken earlier by Canada and earlier yet by the United Kingdom. However, since problems may arise during the merger, the monetary authorities must protect the payment system at large as well as small depositors. Canada's banking system may be both more stable and more efficient than the U.S. banking system, but the United States has compensated by developing more open and deep capital markets.Financial Intermediation,Banks&Banking Reform,Payment Systems&Infrastructure,Financial Crisis Management&Restructuring,Decentralization,Housing Finance,Banks&Banking Reform,Financial Intermediation,Financial Crisis Management&Restructuring,Municipal Financial Management
Palaealeurodicus wallaceus Martin 2008, comb. nov.
No full text<i>Palaealeurodicus wallaceus</i> (Martin) comb. nov. <p>(Fig. 82)</p> <p> <i>Aleurodicus wallaceus</i> Martin, 1988: 59. Holotype puparium, Sulawesi [BMNH, examined].</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION. Austro-oriental Region – Brunei, Sarawak, Sulawesi.</p> <p> MATERIAL EXAMINED (all BMNH). Holotype puparium and 30 paratype puparia, Indonesia, Sulawesi Utara, Danau Mooat, near Kotamobagu, on <i>Persea americana</i> (Lauraceae), 23.iii.1985 (Martin); puparia & third-instar nymphs, Brunei, Belait District, Penanjong army base, on undetermined host, 03.iii.1989 (Martin); 1 puparium, East Malaysia, Sarawak, Gunung Mulu National Park, Long Pala base camp, on Annonaceae, 27.vi.1978 (Eastop).</p> <p> COMMENTS. <i>P. wallaceus</i> was originally discovered feeding on an avocado tree in Sulawesi. Although avocado is a neotropical plant introduced into Asia, this whitefly is immediately recognisable as a member of the old-world group of species that were then accommodated in <i>Aleurodicus</i>. A single puparium was collected in Sarawak as part of the Royal Geographical Society’s expedition to Gunung Mulu (1977-1978), and the author has since also collected material in Brunei.</p> <p> This species differs from <i>P. holmesii</i> principally in the characteristics of the marginal teeth, and may also be distinguished from the other species of <i>Palaealeurodicus</i> by use of the key, pp. 46, 47.</p>Published as part of <i>Martin, Jon H., 2008, A revision of Aleurodicus Douglas (Sternorrhyncha, Aleyrodidae), with two new genera proposed for palaeotropical natives and an identification guide to world genera of Aleurodicinae, pp. 1-100 in Zootaxa 1835 (1)</i> on page 51, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.1835.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/5127230">http://zenodo.org/record/5127230</a>
- …
