Search for: "Matter of Adoption of Barnett"
Results 1 - 20
of 241
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2008, 8:37 pm
As Barnett is arguing that method matters, Segal and Spaeth are surely still arguing that it doesn' â„¢t. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 12:08 pm
This was the rationale Judge Hudson adopted in striking down the individual mandate in the Virginia case. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 1:42 pm
(Randy Barnett) I cannot say I was particularly impressed with Ian Millhiser’s article, How Conservatives Abandoned Judicial Restraint, Took Over The Courts And Radically Transformed America, except insofar as it was actually pretty impressive how he was able to dredge up, dust off, and then somehow include in a single essay pretty much every Leftie trope about conservative and libertarian constitutionalism, no matter how internally inconsistent or inaccurate. [read post]
14 Jun 2014, 2:02 am
Barnette (319 U.S. 624). [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 5:55 am
(Randy Barnett) To uphold the Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice Roberts adopted a “saving construction” in which he deleted the “requirement” that all non-exempt Americans buy health insurance, leaving only the “penalty,” which he then recharacterized as a tax. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 6:00 am
Notice how much simpler it is simply to adopt judicial equality: if in a properly presented case, the Supreme Court holds that a law is unconstitutional, then it is “null and void” as a matter of positive law. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 5:07 am
Barnett notes. [read post]
8 Dec 2021, 8:47 am
" In this light, Randy Barnett is the majority. [read post]
29 Apr 2015, 8:06 am
BARNETT: That’s cheating. [read post]
13 Sep 2017, 11:24 am
Barnette, “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 8:10 am
Only his citizenship matters in that situation. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 1:13 pm
(Orin Kerr) Many thanks to Randy Barnett for his thoughtful views below on the relationship between the Necessary and Proper Clause and existing Commerce Clause doctrine. [read post]
15 Feb 2007, 9:55 am
Second, the Constitution may treat precedent as a matter of federal common law that is modifiable by federal statute - thereby allowing for precedent without compelling it. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 4:33 am
Indeed, existing doctrine requires judges to make up reasons for such restrictions, no matter how disconnected these rationales may be from why the regulations were adopted. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 1:13 pm
(Randy Barnett) I recently finished reading Pauline Maier’s marvelous book, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 10:01 pm
Perhaps Justice Scalia will someday extend this theory to include the power to regulate inactivity (or to mandate that persons engage in economic activity) when doing so is essential to a broader regulatory scheme, and it will be adopted by five justices. [read post]
21 Dec 2016, 3:54 am
Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of Westminster This article was originally published on The Conversation. [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 4:15 pm
(OK, he's at Harvard, but the fact is that there was were astonishingly fe "leading law professors" who joined Randy Barnett's attack and/or predicted its success. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 9:39 am
Barnett September 18, 2001 11:30 a.m. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 5:09 am
This is a difficult legal distinction to explain, but one that matters nonetheless. [read post]
