{"id":1370,"date":"2013-10-08T08:13:44","date_gmt":"2013-10-08T15:13:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/?page_id=940"},"modified":"2017-12-26T16:25:21","modified_gmt":"2017-12-26T16:25:21","slug":"vols-30-34","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/vols-30-34\/","title":{"rendered":"Vols. 30-34"},"content":{"rendered":"

Volume 34 – Issue 3<\/a>
\nVolume 34 – Issue 2<\/a>
\nVolume 34 – Issue 1<\/a>
\nVolume 33 – Issue 3<\/a>
\nVolume 33 – Issue 2<\/a>
\nVolume 33 – Issue 1<\/a>
\nVolume 32 – Issue 3<\/a>
\nVolume 32 – Issue 2<\/a>
\nVolume 32 – Issue 1<\/a>
\nVolume 31 – Issue 3<\/a>
\nVolume 31 – Issue 2<\/a>
\nVolume 31 – Issue 1<\/a>
\nVolume 30 – Issue 3<\/a>
\nVolume 30 – Issue 2<\/a>
\nVolume 30 – Issue 1<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Volume 34, Number 3 – Summer 2011<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS
\nCONVENTION \u2014 2010<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
819<\/td>\nDIRECT DEMOCRACY: GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE?<\/a>Richard A. Epstein<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
827<\/td>\nELECTIONS MATTER<\/a>Michael J. Gerhardt<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
837<\/td>\nHOW TO COUNT TO THIRTY\u2010FOUR: THE CONSTITUTIONAL CASE FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION<\/a>Michael Stokes Paulsen<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
873<\/td>\nENTRENCHING GOOD GOVERNMENT REFORMS<\/a>Mark V. Tushnet<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
879<\/td>\nTHE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PROPOSITION 8<\/a>Richard A. Epstein<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
ARTICLES<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
889<\/td>\nEMBODIED EQUALITY: DEBUNKING EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENTS FOR ABORTION RIGHTS<\/a>Erika Bachiochi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
951<\/td>\nTHE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SOCIAL COST<\/a>Josh Blackman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1043<\/td>\n34_3_1043_Lund<\/a>MAY LAWYERS BE GIVEN THE POWER TO ELECT THOSE WHO CHOOSE OUR JUDGES? \u201cMERIT SELECTION\u201d AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWNelson Lund<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
NOTES<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1071<\/td>\nWHAT\u2019S THE HARM? NONTAXPAYER STANDING TO CHALLENGE RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1099<\/td>\nWHY WE CANNOT ASK WHY: ETHICAL INDEPENDENCE AND VOTER INTENT<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1117<\/td>\nTHE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF FIREARM LEGISLATION IN THE WAKE OF McDonald v. City of Chicago<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1131<\/td>\nMACHINEGUNNING REASON: SENTENCING FACTORS AND MANDATORY MINIMUMS IN United States v. O\u2019Brien<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (2010)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Volume 34, Number 2 – Spring 2011<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FIRST TWO YEARS: A LEGAL REFLECTION<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
421<\/td>\nHEAT EXPANDS ALL THINGS: THE PROLIFERATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATION UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION<\/a>Jonathan H. Adler<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
453<\/td>\n“ANYTHING BUT BUSH?”: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND GUANTANAMO BAY<\/a>Tung Yin<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
493<\/td>\nTHE “FULL ACCESS DOCTRINE”: CONGRESS’S CONSTITUTIONAL ENTITLEMENT TO NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION<\/a>Vicki Divoll<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
543<\/td>\nPRIVATE REGULATION<\/a>Ronen Avraham<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
CORPORATE SPEECH AND ELECTORAL SPENDING<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
639<\/td>\nCITIZENS UNITED V. FEC<\/em>: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT BIG CORPORATIONS SHOULD HAVE BUT DO NOT WANT<\/a>Richard A Epstein<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
663<\/td>\nFOREIGN NATIONALS, ELECTORAL SPENDING, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT<\/a>Toni M. Massaro<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
ARTICLE<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
705<\/td>\nDAMAGES UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND A CALL FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORM<\/a>Alex Kardon<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
ESSAY<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
769<\/td>\nPROTECTING RELIGIONS FROM “DEFAMATION”: A THREAT TO UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS<\/a>Leonard A. Leo, Felice D. Gaer, & Elizabeth Cassidy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
NOTES<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
785<\/td>\nEVOLVING STANDARDS AS A JUDICIAL MANDATE: NECESSARY OR SUPERFLUOUS?<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
805<\/td>\nTHE LOSS OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION IN CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY V. MARTINEZ<\/em>, 130 S. CT. 2971 (2010)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Volume 34, Number 1 – Winter 2010<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n
ORIGINALISM 2.0: THE TWENTY\u2010NINTH ANNUAL FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL STUDENT SYMPOSIUM ON LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY\u20142010<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
I. ORIGINALISM: A RATIONALIZATION FOR CONSERVATIVISM OR A PRINCIPLED THEORY OF INTERPRETATION?<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nARE ORIGINALIST CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES PRINCIPLED, OR ARE THEY RATIONALIZATIONS FOR CONSERVATISM?<\/a>Richard H. Fallon, Jr.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29<\/td>\nIS ORIGINALISM TOO CONSERVATIVE?<\/a>Keith E. Whittington<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
II. ORIGINALISM IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: ANCIENT CHECKS
\nOR NEWFANGLED RIGHTS?<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
45<\/td>\nTWO CHEERS, NOT THREE, FOR SIXTH AMENDMENT ORIGINALISM<\/a>Stephanos Bibas<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
53<\/td>\nORIGINALISM AS AN ANCHOR FOR THE SIXTH AMENDMENT<\/a>Jeffrey L. Fisher<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
III. ORIGINALISM AND CONSTRUCTION: DOES ORIGINALISM ALWAYS PROVIDE THE ANSWER?<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
65<\/td>\nINTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION<\/a>Randy E. Barnett<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
73<\/td>\nORIGINALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: DOES ORIGINALISM ALWAYS PROVIDE THE ANSWER?<\/a>Lino A. Graglia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
89<\/td>\nORIGINALISM AND HISTORY: THE CASE OF
\nBOUMEDIENE V. BUSH<\/em><\/a>A. Raymond Randolph<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
99<\/td>\nINTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION: ORIGINALISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS<\/a>Kermit Roosevelt III<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
IV. ORIGINALISM, PRECEDENT, AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
111<\/td>\nORIGINALISM AND STARE DECISIS<\/a>Stephen Markman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
121<\/td>\nORIGINALISM AND PRECEDENT<\/a>John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
129<\/td>\nORIGINALISM, PRECEDENT, AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT<\/a>Jeffrey Rosen<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
137<\/td>\nORIGINALISM, CONSERVATIVISM, AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT<\/a>David A. Strauss<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
V. DOES THE ORIGINALISM OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE JUSTICE FOR ALL?<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
149<\/td>\nDOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL?<\/a>Steven G. Calabresi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
ESSAY<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
157<\/td>\nWAS BORK RIGHT ABOUT JUDGES?<\/a>Thomas B. Griffith<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
ARTICLES<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
171<\/td>\nGOOGLE AND THE LIMITS OF ANTITRUST: THE CASE AGAINST THE CASE AGAINST GOOGLE<\/a>Geoffrey A. Manne & Joshua D. Wright<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
245<\/td>\nWHAT IS MARRIAGE?<\/a>Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, & Ryan T. Anderson<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
289<\/td>\nSHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM BY PUBLIC PENSION FUNDS AND THE RIGHTS OF DISSENTING EMPLOYEES UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT<\/a>Eric John Finseth<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
CODA<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
367<\/td>\nCAN CONGRESS OVERTURN GRAHAM V. FLORIDA<\/em>?<\/a>Richard M. R\u00e9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
377<\/td>\nPATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER IN Bilski v. Kappos<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
393<\/td>\nFEDERAL \u201cPROCEDURAL\u201d RULES UNDERMINE IMPORTANT STATE INTERESTS IN Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co.<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
405<\/td>\nREMOVING CORPORATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE RESTRICTIONS IN Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission<\/em>, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n


\nVolume 33, Number 3 \u2013 Summer 2010<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL
\nLAWYERS CONVENTION \u2014 2009<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
907<\/td>\nBEING HONEST ABOUT BEING HONEST AGENTS<\/a>Guido Calabresi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
915<\/td>\nJUDGES AS HONEST AGENTS<\/a>Frank H. Easterbrook<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
925<\/td>\nWHY CONSERVATIVES, AND OTHERS, HAVE TROUBLE SUPPORTING THE MEANINGFUL ENFORCEMENT OF FREE EXERCISE RIGHTS<\/a>Alan Brownstein<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
935<\/td>\nFEDERALISM AND FAITH REDUX<\/a>Ira C. Lupu<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
943<\/td>\nRELIGION AND ITS RELATION TO LIMITED GOVERNMENT<\/a>Michael W. McConnell<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
953<\/td>\nTHE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE WAR ON TERROR<\/a>Michael B. Mukasey<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
ESSAY<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
963<\/td>\nTHE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL JUDGE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION: SOME PERSPECTIVES FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT<\/a>Diarmuid F. O\u2019Scannlain<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
ARTICLES<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
987<\/td>\nLOVE, TRUTH, AND THE ECONOMY: A REFLECTION ON BENEDICT XVI\u2019S CARITAS IN VERITATE<\/em><\/a>John M. Breen<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1031<\/td>\nCAN CONGRESS OVERTURN KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA<\/em>?<\/a>Richard M. R\u00e9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1107<\/td>\nRATIONAL PLEADING IN THE MODERN WORLD OF CIVIL LITIGATION: THE LESSONS AND PUBLIC POLICY BENEFITS OF TWOMBLY AND IQBAL<\/em><\/a>Victor E. Schwartz & Christopher E. Appel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
BOOK REVIEW<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1151<\/td>\nTHE ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN CRIMINAL LAW: PRIVILEGE OR PUNISH<\/em><\/a>Gerard V. Bradley<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS<\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1177<\/td>\nCHEVRON<\/em>\u2019S SLIDING SCALE IN Wyeth v. Levine<\/em>, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009) <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1191<\/td>\nA RETREAT FROM DECISION BY RULE IN Ashcroft v. Iqbal<\/em>, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

1203THE DECLINE OF THE COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS IN Nebraska Public Power District v. United States<\/em>,
\n590 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Volume 33, Number 2 – Spring 2010<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
387<\/td>\nWHY I WILL NEVER BE A KEYNESIAN<\/a>Richard A. Epstein<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
407<\/td>\nUNAFFORDABLE HOUSING AND POLITICAL KICKBACKS ROCKED THE AMERICAN ECONOMY<\/a>Darrell Issa<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
421<\/td>\nCAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 2007\u20132009<\/a>William Poole<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
443<\/td>\nSMITH VERSUS KEYNES: ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE POST\u2010CRISIS ERA<\/a>Samuel Gregg<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
465<\/td>\nTHE BANKS VERSUS THE CONSTITUTION<\/a>Ron Paul<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
476<\/td>\nSTRAW MAN CAPITALISM AND A NEW PATH TO PROSPERITY<\/a>Stephen Moore & Tyler Grimm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
487<\/td>\nFREEDOM AND EQUALITY IN MARKET EXCHANGE: SOME NATURAL LAW REFLECTIONS<\/a>Christopher Tollefsen<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
495<\/td>\nTHE CONSTITUTION AND ITS MORAL WARNINGS<\/a>Hadley Arkes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
507<\/td>\nTHE FINANCIAL CRISIS: MORAL FAILURE OR COGNITIVE FAILURE?<\/a>Arnold Kling<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
519<\/td>\nTHE CASE AGAINST THE FISCAL STIMULUS<\/a>Jeffrey Miron<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
531<\/td>\nCUMULATING POLICY CONSEQUENCES, FRIGHTENED OVERREACTIONS, AND THE CURRENT SURGE OF GOVERNMENT\u2019S SIZE, SCOPE, AND POWER<\/a>Robert Higgs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
557<\/td>\nANTITRUST IN AN ERA OF MARKET FAILURE<\/a>Alan Devlin<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
607<\/td>\nFACILITATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH THROUGH REFORM OF THE SECURITIES CLASS\u2010ACTION SYSTEM: EXPLORING ARBITRATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO LITIGATION<\/a>Bradley J. Bondi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
639<\/td>\nTHE DISTORTING INCENTIVES FACING THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION<\/a>Jonathan R. Macey<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
671<\/td>\nTHE REDUCTION OF SYSTEMIC RISK IN THE UNITED STATES FINANCIAL SYSTEM<\/a>Hal S. Scott<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
735<\/td>\nTHE SCANDAL BENEATH THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: GETTING A VIEW FROM A MORAL\u2010CULTURAL MENTAL MODEL<\/a>Kevin T. Jackson<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
779<\/td>\nDOES THE STATE CREATE THE MARKET\u2014AND SHOULD IT PURSUE EFFICIENCY?<\/a>Timothy Sandefur<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
807<\/td>\nINTELLECTUAL HAZARD: HOW CONCEPTUAL BIASES IN COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CRISIS OF 2008<\/a>Geoffrey P. Miller & Gerald Rosenfeld<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

NOTES<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

841<\/td>\nPUBLICITY RIGHTS, FALSE ENDORSEMENT, AND THE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
863<\/td>\nAN INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK FOR NARROWER IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 230 OF THE
\nCOMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
885<\/td>\nPUNISHMENT AND STUDENT SPEECH: STRAINING THE REACH OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Volume 33, Number 1 – Winter 2010<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM<\/strong>THE TWENTY\u2010EIGHTH ANNUAL FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL STUDENT SYMPOSIUM<\/em>ON LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY\u20142009<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

I. Is The Separation of Powers Principle Exportable?<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

5<\/td>\nIS THE SEPARATION OF POWERS EXPORTABLE?<\/a>Steven G. Calabresi & Kyle Bady<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\nTHE CASE FOR PROMOTING DEMOCRACY THROUGH EXPORT CONTROL<\/a>Oona Hathaway<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

II. Medell\u00edn v. Texas<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

25<\/td>\nDEFENDING U.S. SOVEREIGNTY, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND FEDERALISM IN MEDELL\u00cdN V. TEXAS<\/a>Ted Cruz<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

III. Confirmation Battles and Presidential Nominations<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

39<\/td>\nIN PRAISE OF SUPREME COURT FILIBUSTERS<\/a>John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
47<\/td>\nJUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS: CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PRACTICE<\/a>Rachel Brand<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

IV. The Administrative State and the Constitution<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

55<\/td>\nBURYING THE CONSTITUTION UNDER A TARP<\/a>Gary Lawson<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
73<\/td>\nDELEGATION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW<\/a>Thomas W. Merrill<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
87<\/td>\nDECONSTRUCTING NONDELEGATION<\/a>Cynthia R. Farina<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
103<\/td>\nLEGISLATIVE DELEGATION, THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE, AND THE LEGITIMACY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE<\/a>Peter M. Shane<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

V. War Powers and the Executive<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

113<\/td>\nTHE WAR POWER<\/a>Michael Stokes Paulsen<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
139<\/td>\nCLEAR STATEMENT RULES AND EXECUTIVE WAR POWERS<\/a>Curtis A. Bradley<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

Exchange<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

149<\/td>\nTHE PUZZLE OF HAMILTON\u2019S FEDERALIST NO. 77<\/a>Seth Barrett Tillman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
169<\/td>\nTHE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF HAMILTON\u2019S FEDERALIST NO. 77 AND AN UNEXPECTED CHALLENGE: A RESPONSE TO SETH BARRETT TILLMAN<\/a>Jeremy D. Bailey<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

Essays on Heller<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

185<\/td>\nTHE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN THE STATES: AMBIGUITY, FALSE MODESTY, AND (MAYBE) ANOTHER WIN FOR ORIGINALISM<\/a>Clark M. Neily III<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
203<\/td>\nSECOND AMENDMENT REDUX: SCRUTINY, INCORPORATION, AND THE HELLER PARADOX<\/a>Robert A. Levy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

Articles<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

217<\/td>\nORIGINALISM AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: TWO CASE STUDIES OF CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE
\nIN SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKING<\/a>Douglas H. Ginsburg<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
239<\/td>\nREVIVING NECESSITY IN EMINENT DOMAIN<\/a>Robert C. Bird<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
283<\/td>\nTHE LONELY DEATH OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING<\/a>Richard M. Esenberg<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

Book Review<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

333<\/td>\nA FAINT\u2010HEARTED LIBERTARIAN AT BEST: THE SWEET MYSTERY OF JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY<\/a>Ilya Shapiro<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n\n

Recent Developments<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

361<\/td>\nTITLE VII\u2019S CONFLICTING \u201cTWIN PILLARS\u201d IN Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658 (2009)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
375<\/td>\nFEDERALISM BY JURY IN United States v. Fell, 571 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 2009)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Volume 32, Number 3 – Summer 2009<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION: A RETROSPECTIVE<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reflections on Events and Changes at the Department of Justice<\/a>John Ashcroft<\/td>\n813<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
National Security and the Rule of Law<\/a>Michael B. Mukasey<\/td>\n831<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The “Bush Doctrine”: Can Preventitive War Be Justified?<\/a>Robert J. Delahunty & John Yoo<\/td>\n843<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Public Bioethics and the Bush Presidency<\/a>O. Carter Snead<\/td>\n867<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Speaking Up For Marriage<\/a>William C. Duncan<\/td>\n915<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Faith-Based Initiative 2.0: The Bush Faith-Based and Community Initiative<\/a>Stanley W. Carlson\u2010Thies<\/td>\n931<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Bush Administration and America’s International Religious Freedom Policy<\/a>Thomas F. Farr & William L. Saunders, Jr.<\/td>\n949<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Unfinished Business: The Bush Administration and Racial Preferences<\/a>Roger Clegg<\/td>\n971<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A Measured Approach: Employment and Labor Law During the George W. Bush Years<\/a>William J. Kilberg, Jason Schwartz & Joshua Chadwick<\/td>\n997<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
False Premises: The Accountability Fetish in Education<\/a>Martha Derthick & Joshua M. Dunn<\/td>\n1015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Essay<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Constitution as the Playbook for Judicial Selection<\/a>Orrin G. Hatch<\/td>\n1035<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Articles<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Measuring Meta-Doctrine: An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Minimalism in the Supreme Court<\/a>Robert Anderson IV<\/td>\n1045<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Testing the Boundaries of the First Amendment Press Clause: A Proposal for Protecting the Media from Newsgathering Torts<\/a>Anthony L. Fargo & Laurence B. Alexander<\/td>\n1093<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reconsidering the Felony Murder Rule in Light of Modern Criticisms: Doesn’t the Conclusion Depend Upon the Particular Rule at Issue?<\/a>David Crump<\/td>\n1155<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Recent Developments<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Imperfect Minimalism: Unanswered Questions In
\nHall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008<\/a><\/td>\n		1187<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“Wholly Foreign to the First Amendment”: The Demise of Campaign Finance’s Equalizing Rationale In
\nDavis v. Federal Election Commission, 128 S. Ct. 2759 (2008<\/a><\/td>\n		1197<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Squaring the Circle: Reconciling Clear Statutory Text with Contradictory Statutory Purpose In
\nUnited States v. Whitley, 529 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2008)<\/a><\/td>\n		1211<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Volume 32, Number 2 – Spring 2009<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS CONVENTION\u20142007<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
I. Is America Different From Other Major Democracies?<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Separation of People and State<\/a>
\nRandy E. Barnett<\/em><\/td>\n		451<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exceptionalism in a Time of Stress<\/a>
\nGraham Wilson<\/em><\/td>\n		455<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
II. The Constitution and American Exceptionalism: Citation of Foreign Law<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
An American Amendment<\/a>
\nNicholas Quinn Rosenkranz<\/em><\/td>\n		475<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
III. American Exceptionalism, The War on Terror, and the Rule of Law in the Islamic World<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Answering the Critics of the Legal Case for the War on Terror<\/a>
\nDavid B. Rivkin, Jr.<\/em><\/td>\n		485<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
American Exceptionalism, the War on Terror, and the Rule of Law in the Islamic World<\/a>
\nNadine Strossen<\/em><\/td>\n		495<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ESSAY<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
On Honor<\/a>
\nLaurence H. Silberman<\/em><\/td>\n		503<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ARTICLES<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Neutrality in Liberal Legal Theory and Catholic Social Thought<\/a>
\nJohn M. Breen<\/em><\/td>\n		513<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Restricting Experimental Use<\/a>
\nAlan Devlin<\/em><\/td>\n		599<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Use and Abuse of Foreign Law in Constitutional Interpretation<\/a>
\nGanesh Sitaraman<\/em><\/td>\n		653<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Why Can’t Martha Stewart Have A Gun?<\/a>
\nC. Kevin Marshall<\/em><\/td>\n		695<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BOOK REVIEW<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exposing the Myth of Homo Economicus<\/a>
\nRonald J. Colombo<\/em><\/td>\n		737<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Treaties, Execution, and Originalism
\nMedell\u00edn v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346 (2008)<\/a><\/td>\n		767<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Validity of Conditional Sales: Competing Views on Patent Exhaustion in
\nQuanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008)<\/a><\/td>\n		785<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Shifting Courses In Admiralty:
\nExxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008)<\/a><\/td>\n		799<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

<\/a>Volume 32, Number 1 – Winter 2009<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
THE PEOPLE & THE COURTS<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Twenty-Seventh Annual National Federalist Society Student Symposium on Law and Public Policy – 2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
I. Judicial Interference With Community Values<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Judicial Review, Local Values, and Pluralism<\/a><\/td>\nRichard W. Garnett<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Counting States<\/a><\/td>\nRoderick M. Hills, Jr<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Voting With Your Feet Is No Substitute for Constitutional Rights<\/a><\/td>\nDouglas Laycock<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Norm Change Or Judicial Decree? The Courts, The Public, and Welfare Reform<\/a><\/td>\nAmy L. Wax<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
II. The Merits of Selecting Our Judges<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Merits of Merit Selection<\/a><\/td>\nThomas R. Phillips<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Merit Selection: Choosing Judges Based On Their Politics Under The Veil Of A Disarming Name<\/a><\/td>\nClifford W. Taylor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
III. Kelo, Grutter, and Popular Responses To Unpopular Decisions<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Achieving Equal Treatment Through The Ballot Box<\/a><\/td>\nWard Connerly<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Political Responses To Supreme Court Decisions<\/a><\/td>\nMarci A. Hamilton<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
IV. The People’s Common Law: Is Law and Economics Anti-Democratic?<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Law and Economics: Realism or Democracy?<\/a><\/td>\nHenry E. Smith<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
V. An Originalist Judge and the Media<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
An Interpretivist Judge and the Media<\/a><\/td>\nStephen J. Markman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Limits Of Interpretivism<\/a><\/td>\nRichard Primus<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A Response To Professor Primus<\/a><\/td>\nStephen J. Markman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VI. Tradition and the People’s Constitution<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sodomy and Guns: Tradition as Democratic Deliberation and Constitutional Interpretation<\/a><\/td>\nWilliam N. Eskridge, Jr<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\nESSAY<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tools Against Terror: All of the Above<\/a><\/td>\nMichael Chertoff<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\nARTICLES<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Public Displays of Affection … For God: Religious Moments After McCreary and Van Orden<\/a><\/td>\nEdith Brown Clement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Manliness and the Constitution<\/a><\/td>\nJohn M. Kang<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Marketing Pharmaceutical Products in the Twentyfirst Century: An Analysis of the Continued Viability of Traditional Principles of Law in the Age of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising<\/a><\/td>\nVictor E. Schwartz, Cary Silverman, Michael J. Hulka &Christopher E. Appel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Returning to the Pruneyard: The Unconstitutionality of State-Sanctioned Trespass in the Name of Speech<\/a><\/td>\nGregory C. Sisk<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\nBOOK REVIEW<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lessons From the Rise of Legal Conservatism<\/a><\/td>\nIlya Somin<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\nRECENT DEVELOPMENT<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Inventing the “Right To Vote” in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 128 S. Ct. 1610 (2008)<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

<\/a>Volume 31, Number 3 – Summer 2008<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Foreword<\/a><\/td>\nJustice Antonin Scalia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A Critical Introduction to the Originalism Debate<\/a><\/td>\nSteven G. Calabresi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Symposium Essays On Originalism<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
I. Originalism and Pragmatism<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pragmatism’s Role In Interpretation<\/a><\/td>\nFrank H. Easterbrook<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Two (More) Problems With Originalism<\/a><\/td>\nLarry Kramer<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A Pragmatic Defense of Originalism<\/a><\/td>\nJohn O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Originalism and Pragmatism: False Friends<\/a><\/td>\nJeffrey Rosen<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
II. Originalism and Precedent<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Text vs. Precedent In Constitutional Law<\/a><\/td>\nSteven G. Calabresi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
On Text and Precedent<\/a><\/td>\nAkhil Reed Amar<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Why Conservatives Shouldn’t Be Originalists<\/a><\/td>\nDavid A. Strauss<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Conservative Case For Precedent<\/a><\/td>\nThomas W. Merrill<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Resisting the Ratchet<\/a><\/td>\nStephen J. Markman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
III. The Original Meaning of the Commerce, Spending, and Necessary and Proper Clauses<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A Government of Adequate Powers<\/a><\/td>\nMichael Stokes Paulsen<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Choice Between Madison and FDR<\/a><\/td>\nRandy Barnett<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Articles<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Paper Money and the Original Understanding of The Coinage Clause<\/a><\/td>\nRobert G. Natelson<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Original Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause: The Evidence From the First Congress<\/a><\/td>\nVincent Phillip Mu\u00f1oz<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Essays<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Thinking About Originalism<\/a><\/td>\nCharles R. Kesler<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Costituting the Constitution: Understanding the American Constitution Through the British Cultural Constitution<\/a><\/td>\nGarrett Ward Sheldon<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Note<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Politics, Constitutional Interpretation, and Media Ecology: An Argument Against Judicial Minimalism<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Recent Developments<\/strong><\/em>The Supreme Court of the United States, 2006 Term<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reconceptualizing Split-Recovery Statutes: Philip Morris USA v. Williams,
\n127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007)<\/a><\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Playing Lawyers: The Implications of Endowing Parents with Substantive Rights Under Idea in Winkelman v. Parma City School District,
\n127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007)<\/a><\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Avoiding Mead: The Problem with Unanimity in Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke,
\n127 S. Ct. 2339 (2007)<\/a><\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
No Taxation Without Separation: The Supreme Court Passes on an Opportunity to End Establishment Clause Exceptionalism, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.,
\n127 S. Ct. 2553 (2007)<\/a><\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Volume 31, Number 2 – Spring 2008<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Essays In Honor Of Judge Robert H. Bork<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
I. Competition Law and the Free Market<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Chicago School and Exlcusionary Conduct<\/a><\/td>\nFrank H. Easterbrook<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Judge Bork, Consumer Welfare, and Antitrust Law<\/a><\/td>\nDouglas H. Ginsburg<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Abiding Influence of The Antitrust Paradox<\/a><\/td>\nGeorge L. Priest<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
II. Judicial Philosophy and Originalism<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Of Inkblots and Originalism: Historical Ambiguity and the Case of the Ninth Amendment<\/a><\/td>\n\u00a0Kurt T. Lash<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
On the Hypothesis that Lie at the Foundations of Originalism<\/a><\/td>\nJohn Harrison<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Misunderstood Relationship Between Originalism and Popular Sovereignty<\/a><\/td>\nSaikrishna B. Prakash<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
III. Law and Culture<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s<\/a><\/td>\nSteven G. Calabresi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Revisited<\/a><\/td>\nRobert P. George<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Borkean Case Against Robert Bork’s Case for Censorship<\/a><\/td>\n\u00a0Ilya Somin<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Articles<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Partial-Birth Abortion and the Perils of Constitutional Common Law<\/a><\/td>\nRobert J. Pushaw, Jr.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, Inviolability, and Automatic Injunctions<\/a><\/td>\nShyamkrishna Balganesh<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A New Architecture of Commercial Speech Law<\/a><\/td>\nCharles Fischette<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Judicial Review of Local Land Use Decisions: Lessons from RLUIPA<\/a><\/td>\nAshira Pelman Ostrow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Essay<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lopez, Morrison, and Raich: Federalism in the Rehnquist Court<\/a><\/td>\n\u00a0Lino A. Graglia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Book Review<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Yoo’s Labour’s Lost: Jack Goldsmith’s Nine-Month Saga in the Office of Legal Counsel<\/a><\/td>\n\u00a0Douglas W. Kmiec<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a><\/a>Volume 31, Number 1 Winter 2008<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Preface<\/a><\/p>\n

Robert R. Porter<\/p>\n

Foreword<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A Founder’s Retrospective: The Journal<\/em> at 30 Years<\/a><\/p>\n

Spencer Abraham<\/p>\n

Symposium<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Law and Morality<\/p>\n

On the Foundations and Nature of Morality<\/a><\/p>\n

Robert P. Burns<\/p>\n

I. Moral Choices and the Eight Amendment<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moral Choices, Moral Truth, and the Eighth Amendment<\/a><\/p>\n

Ronald J. Allen<\/p>\n

Methodology, Proportionality, Equality: Which Moral Question Does the Eight Amendment Pose?<\/a><\/p>\n

Laurence Claus<\/p>\n

Morality in Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence<\/a><\/p>\n

Michael S. Moore<\/p>\n

II. Government Promotion of Moral Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

Government Promotion of Moral Issues: Gambling, Smoking, and Advertising<\/a><\/p>\n

Lino A. Graglia<\/p>\n

What Is the Government’s Role in Promoting Morals?… Seriously?<\/a><\/p>\n

G. Marcus Cole<\/p>\n

How to Reverse Government Imposition of Immorality: A Strategy for Eroding Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Steven G. Calabresi<\/p>\n

III. The Morality of First Amendment Jurisprudence<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Morality of First Amendment Jurisprudence<\/a><\/p>\n

Phyllis Schlafly<\/p>\n

Why Phyllis Schlafly is Right (But Wrong) About Pornography<\/a><\/p>\n

Andrew Koppelman<\/p>\n

The Federalist Approach to the First Amendment<\/a><\/p>\n

John O. McGinnis<\/p>\n

IV. Marriage, Public Policy, and the Constitution<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gay Sex and Marriage, the Reciprocal Disadvantage Problem, and the Crisis in Liberal Constitutional Theory<\/a><\/p>\n

Louis Michael Seidman<\/p>\n

Keynote Address<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moral Duty and the Rule of Law<\/a><\/p>\n

William H. Pryor Jr.<\/p>\n

Articles<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Natural Law<\/a><\/p>\n

Robert P. George<\/p>\n

Dred Scott<\/em> Revisited<\/a><\/p>\n

Harry V. Jaffa<\/p>\n

Modesty and Moralism: Justice, Prudence, and Abortion \u2014 A Reply to Skeel & Stuntz<\/a><\/p>\n

John M. Breen<\/p>\n

Marriage Facts<\/a><\/p>\n

Monte Neil Stewart<\/p>\n

Note<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

“Play in the Joints”: The Struggle to Define Permissive Accommodation under the First Amendment<\/a><\/p>\n

Sarah M. Isgur<\/p>\n

Recent Developments<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Enemy Combatants and a Challenge to the Separation of War Powers in<\/a><\/p>\n

Al-Marri v. Wright<\/em>, 487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007)<\/a><\/p>\n

Gregory H. Shill<\/p>\n

Saying What the Law Should Be: Judicial Usurpation in<\/a><\/p>\n

Al-Marri v. Wright<\/em>, 487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007)<\/a><\/p>\n

J.B. Tarter<\/p>\n

Justices in the Jury Box: Video Evidence and Summary Judgment in<\/a><\/p>\n

Scott v. Harris<\/em>, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007)<\/a><\/p>\n

David Kessler<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/a>Volume 30, Number 3<\/strong> – Summer 2007<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n

Articles<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

An Empirical Analysis of Life Tenure: A Response to Professors Calabresi & Lindgren<\/a><\/p>\n

David R. Stras & Ryan W. Scott<\/p>\n

Can States Tax National Banks to Educate Consumers About Predatory Lending Practices?<\/a><\/p>\n

Howell E. Jackson & Stacy A. Anderson<\/p>\n

Charter Schools and Collective Bargaining: Compatible Marriage or Illegitimate Relationship?<\/a><\/p>\n

Martin H. Malin & Charles Taylor Kerchner<\/p>\n

Or for Poorer? How Same-Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty<\/a><\/p>\n

Roger Severino<\/p>\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Newer Textualism: Justice Alito’s Statutory Interpretation<\/a><\/p>\n

Elliott M. Davis<\/p>\n

The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process<\/a><\/p>\n

James Kenneth Rogers<\/p>\n

Antitrust and Positional Arms Races<\/a><\/p>\n

Michael Sabin<\/p>\n

Recent Developments<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 & 2006 Terms<\/p>\n

A Principled Limitation on Judicial Interference: Garcetti v. Ceballos<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006) <\/a><\/p>\n

Andrew Bernie<\/p>\n

Convoluting the Confrontation Right: Davis v. Washington<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006)<\/a><\/p>\n

Candice Chiu<\/p>\n

Subordination of Powers: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006)<\/a><\/p>\n

Jay D. Dealy<\/p>\n

A Sentence Reinstated, a Text Set Aside: Shirking the Lockett Dilemma in Ayers v. Belmontes<\/em>, 127 S. Ct. 469 (2006)<\/a><\/p>\n

Saritha Komatireddy<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/a>Volume 30, Number 2 – <\/strong>Spring 2007<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n

Articles<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Right to Be Present Before Military Commissions and Federal Courts: Protecting National Security in an Age of Classified Information<\/a><\/p>\n

James Nicholas Boeving<\/p>\n

If You (Re)Build It, They Will Come: Contracts to Remake the Rules of Litigation in Arbitration’s Image<\/a><\/p>\n

Henry S. Noyes<\/p>\n

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence<\/a><\/p>\n

Don B. Kates & Gary Mauser<\/p>\n

Majoritarian Democracy in a Federalist System: The Late Chief Justice Rehnquist and the First Amendment<\/a><\/p>\n

Sheri J. Engelken<\/p>\n

Book Review<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

An Indirect Argument for Limiting Presidential Power <\/a><\/p>\n

Aaron Nielson<\/p>\n

Note<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Retroactive Rulemaking <\/a><\/p>\n

Geoffrey C. Weien<\/p>\n

Recent Developments<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 Term<\/p>\n

Legal Injection: The Supreme Court Enters the Lethal Injection Debate: Hill v. McDonough<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. 2096 (2006) <\/a><\/p>\n

Megan Greer<\/p>\n

The Court’s Missed Opportunity to Draw the Line on Partisan Gerrymandering: LULAC v. Perry<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. 2594 (2006)<\/a><\/p>\n

Aaron Brooks<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/a>Volume 30, Number 1<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Fall 2006<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Symposium<\/strong><\/p>\n

International Law and the State of the Constitution<\/p>\n

What is an International Rule of Law? <\/a><\/p>\n

Dennis Jacobs<\/p>\n

The Comparative Disadvantage of Customary International Law <\/a><\/p>\n

John O. McGinnis<\/p>\n

\n

The Rule of International Law<\/a>Jeremy Waldron<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

America Self-Defense Shouldn’t Be Too Distracted by International Law <\/a><\/p>\n

Jeremy Rabkin<\/p>\n

The Constitutional Status of Customary International Law <\/a><\/p>\n

Saikrishna Prakash<\/p>\n

\n

Executive Power v. International Law<\/a>Robert J. Delahunty & John C. Yoo<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Enforceability of International Tribunals’ Decisions in the United States <\/a><\/p>\n

Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain<\/p>\n

\n

Enforcing the Avena <\/em>Decision in U.S. Courts<\/a><\/p>\n

Curtis A. Bradley<\/p>\n

International Adjudicators and Judicial Independence<\/a><\/p>\n

John Harrison<\/p>\n

Executive Power in Foreign Affairs <\/a><\/p>\n

Alex Kozinski<\/p>\n

The Textual Basis of the President’s Foreign Affairs Power <\/a><\/p>\n

Michael D. Ramsey<\/p>\n

The Most Dangerous Branch Abroad <\/a><\/p>\n

Martin S. Flaherty<\/p>\n

\n

Foreign and International Law Sources in Domestic Constitutional Interpretation<\/a><\/p>\n

William H. Pryor Jr.<\/p>\n

\n

International Law as a Resource in Constitutional Interpretation<\/a>Gerald L. Neuman<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Constitutional Law and Transnational Comparisons: The Youngstown<\/em> Decision and American Exceptionalism<\/a><\/p>\n

Vicki C. Jackson<\/p>\n

Foreign Sources and the American Constitution <\/a><\/p>\n

Frank H. Easterbrook<\/p>\n

Articles<\/strong><\/p>\n

Contracting Out of the Culture Wars: How the Law Should Enforce and Communities of Faith Should Encourage More Enduring Marital Commitments <\/a><\/p>\n

Jamie Alan Aycock<\/p>\n

The Law and Economics of Software Security <\/a><\/p>\n

Robert W. Hahn & Anne Layne-Farrar<\/p>\n

Law Outside the Market: The Social Utility of the Private Foundation <\/a><\/p>\n

Carl J. Schramm<\/p>\n

Recent Developments<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 Term<\/p>\n

Don’t Knock Them Until We Try Them: Civil Suits as a Remedy for Knock-and-Announce Violations After Hudson v. Michigan<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006)<\/a><\/p>\n

Jonathan Papik<\/p>\n

The Slow, Just, Unfinished Demise of the Buckley<\/em> Compromise: Randall v. Sorrell<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. 2479 (2006)<\/a><\/p>\n

James Coleman<\/p>\n

Equipoise, Collective Rights and the Future of the Death Penalty: Kansas v. Marsh<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. 2516 (2006) <\/a><\/p>\n

Benjamin Barron<\/p>\n

Elevating Choice Over Quality of Representation: United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. 2557 (2006) <\/a><\/p>\n

Paul Alessio Mezzina<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Volume 34 – Issue 3 Volume 34 – Issue 2 Volume 34 – Issue 1 Volume 33 – Issue 3 Volume 33 – Issue 2 Volume 33 – Issue 1 Volume 32 – Issue 3 Volume 32 – Issue 2 Volume 32 – Issue 1 Volume 31 – Issue 3 Volume 31 – Issue 2 Volume 31 – Issue 1 Volume 30 – Issue 3 Volume 30 – Issue 2 Volume 30 – Issue 1 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1370","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/PeZSiL-m6","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1370","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}