Search for: "Rappaport"
Results 381 - 400
of 1,416
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jan 2014, 6:15 am
John McGinnis & Michael Rappaport, guest-blogging) There are a number of ways of attempting to justify following the Constitution’s original meaning. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 3:25 pm
Now Professor Rappaport has written a new article on recess appointments, which has just gone up on SSRN. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 7:31 am
John McGinnis & Michael Rappaport, guest-blogging) We are very happy to be blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy about our new book, Originalism and the Good Constitution, which has just been published by Harvard University Press. [read post]
4 Jan 2014, 5:54 pm
Readers interested in originalism and constitutional theory should also check out McGinnis and Rappaport’s many fascinating blog posts at the Liberty Law blog. [read post]
4 Jan 2014, 5:13 pm
John McGinnis & Michael Rappaport will be guest-blogging this coming week about their new book, Originalism and the Good Constitution. [read post]
22 Dec 2013, 7:00 am
Mike Rappaport has a pair of posts exploring this question: here’s the first, here’s the second. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 4:42 pm
In their defense of originalism, Originalism and the Good Constitution (Harvard U Press 2013), John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport emphasize the "supermajoritarian" nature of the US Constitution. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 8:15 pm
Mike Rappaport withholds his applause about that [Law and Liberty] Tweet Tags: FDA, vaccinesFDA stands guard against approval of Meningitis B vaccine is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system [read post]
8 Dec 2013, 8:05 pm
[Fair Warning] Thesis of new Jerry Mashaw book: administrative state in U.S. long predated Progressive Era [Law and Liberty: Joseph Postell, Mike Rappaport] Relatedly, hallmark of administrative state said to be “prerogative,” i.e., power to make binding rules without new legislation [Michael Greve] Lorax standing humor: even the Ninth Circuit might not have been able to help [Howard Wasserman, Prawfs] “Formalism and Deference in Administrative Law” [panel at… [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 9:36 am
Rappaport, Original Meaning, supra, at 1550. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 11:43 am
See Rappaport, 52 UCLA L. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 6:36 am
(Will Baude) Yesterday I posted the amicus brief that I and a group of constitutional law scholars filed in the Court’s recess appointments case, Noel Canning. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 5:07 pm
(While it figures in Mike Rappaport’s pathbreaking article on the Clause, for example, it did not make the cut for co-blogger John Elwood’s “Recess Appointments Reading List” last April.) [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 6:09 pm
Similarly, Mike Rappaport and John McGinnis defended “the Senate’s long practice of requiring a supermajority to end debate on legislation,” on the grounds that: If the Senate voted on whether to change the cloture rule, only a simple majority would be needed to change it. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 7:53 am
Michael Rappaport provides a good summary of “The End of Lawyers”, if you aren’t prepared to read the whole book for tomorrow. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 9:05 pm
EPA [Jonathan Adler, Richard Faulk] Ilya Somin briefly reviews three new books on constitutional law: John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport on originalism, Randall Kennedy on affirmative action, and Clark Neily on judicial engagement [Volokh] General jurisdiction: “Justices Wrestle With Whether California Law Reaches A Mercedes Plant In Argentina” [Daniel Fisher] Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. [read post]
13 Oct 2013, 8:45 am
John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution. [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 6:25 am
Related: Michael Greve, John Yoo and Mike Rappaport on rethinking administrative law and the era of deference. [read post]
21 Sep 2013, 12:22 pm
University of San Diego law professors Michael Ramsey and Michael Rappaport do a good job of explaining why. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 3:34 pm
(Will Baude) Mike Rappaport has a post at the Liberty Law Blog making a seemingly straightforward but surprisingly underappreciated point: There is good reason to think that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equality requirement was not originally meant to apply to the federal government. [read post]
