The online companion to the Northwestern University Law Review is proud to feature a four-part series on the constitutional politics of the Tea Party:

The essays originated as a panel discussion at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. Professor Richard Albert offers a brief introduction to the online series and explains the impetus for convening a group of renowned constitutional law scholars to discuss the rise of the Tea Party movement.

Professor Randy Barnett, author of the Repeal Amendment, defends the nature of the Tea Party movement and gives a first-hand account of the development of his constitutional proposal, which has attracted significant support from the group. Professor Barnett also responds to criticisms of the Amendment leveled by [...]]]>

The online companion to the Northwestern University Law Review is proud to feature a four-part series on the constitutional politics of the Tea Party:

The essays originated as a panel discussion at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. Professor Richard Albert offers a brief introduction to the online series and explains the impetus for convening a group of renowned constitutional law scholars to discuss the rise of the Tea Party movement.

Professor Randy Barnett, author of the Repeal Amendment, defends the nature of the Tea Party movement and gives a first-hand account of the development of his constitutional proposal, which has attracted significant support from the group. Professor Barnett also responds to criticisms of the Amendment leveled by Professor Levinson, arguing that his proposal is, if anything, too modest in scope.

Professor Sandy Levinson continues the debate with a critique of Professor Barnett’s proposed Repeal Amendment, which would allow the legislatures of two-thirds of all states to repeal any congressional legislation. Levinson argues that such an amendment undemocratically empowers small states to kill federal legislation.

Professor Jared Goldstein assesses popular constitutionalism in light of the Tea Party movement. After discussing the movement’s constitutional vision and rhetoric, Goldstein suggests that popular engagement with the Constitution and control over its interpretation may not promote democratic values as expected.

Professor Ilya Somin observes that the Tea Party is the first popular constitutionalist movement in many years primarily focused on limiting federal power. He then argues that the Tea Party’s efforts to impose stricter limits on government power would further two important objectives: strengthening democratic accountability and limiting popular hostility towards minorities and foreigners.

http://colloquy.law.northwestern.edu/

Second Amendment scholar Patrick Charles provides a response to Professors Lawrence Rosenthal and Joyce Lee Malcolm in the wake of McDonald v. City of Chicago. Mr. Charles presents historical guideposts to make an argument about the constitutionality of open-carry and conceal-carry prohibitions. The article goes on to critically assess the “well-regulated militia” language of the Second Amendment.

Northwestern’s own Professor John McGinnis discusses the promises and perils of artificial intelligence in a recent podcast. Professor McGinnis is the author of the essay Accelerating AI, recently published in the print journal, and the forthcoming book Accelerating Democracy, which will examine the interaction of technological growth and democratic governance.

Famed Chicago public defender Alex [...]]]>

The online companion to the Northwestern University Law Review is proud to feature five new entries:

Second Amendment scholar Patrick Charles provides a response to Professors Lawrence Rosenthal and Joyce Lee Malcolm in the wake of McDonald v. City of Chicago. Mr. Charles presents historical guideposts to make an argument about the constitutionality of open-carry and conceal-carry prohibitions. The article goes on to critically assess the “well-regulated militia” language of the Second Amendment.

Northwestern’s own Professor John McGinnis discusses the promises and perils of artificial intelligence in a recent podcast. Professor McGinnis is the author of the essay Accelerating AI, recently published in the print journal, and the forthcoming book Accelerating Democracy, which will examine the interaction of technological growth and democratic governance.

Famed Chicago public defender Alex Polikoff discusses the recent Citizens United case on the applicability of First Amendment rights to corporations in elections.  He questions several parts of Justice Kennedy’s decision and ultimately finds the majority opinion untenable.

Professor Howard Wasserman explores the ways in which this most recent Supreme Court, including in the unanimous 2010 decision Morrison v. National Australia Bank, now explicitly requires lower courts to maintain clear, determinate lines between jurisdictional rules and those rules reaching the substance on the merits.

Judge Paul Cassell and Steven Joffee respond to Danielle Levine’s recent article on the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.  Cassell and Joffee argue that victims’ rights do not impair the just adjudication of criminal cases, but rather improve it.

http://colloquy.law.northwestern.edu/

In Why More Antitrust Immunity for the Media Is a Bad Idea, Maurice E. Stucke and Allen P. Grunes—both formerly with the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division—explore the ways in which the FTC has created antitrust immunity for the newspaper industry.  They conclude that further antitrust immunity is not only unnecessary, but counter-productive to a [...]]]> McDonald v. Chicago: Which Standard of Scrutiny Should Apply to Gun-Control Laws? is a debate between Professors Lawrence Rosenthal and Joyce Lee Malcolm on the  standard of scrutiny that will (and should) be applied to gun control regulations in the wake of the recent SCOTUS decision, McDonald v. City of Chicago. This is an engaging and enlightening discussion on what we might expect in future Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In Why More Antitrust Immunity for the Media Is a Bad Idea, Maurice E. Stucke and Allen P. Grunes—both formerly with the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division—explore the ways in which the FTC has created antitrust immunity for the newspaper industry.  They conclude that further antitrust immunity is not only unnecessary, but counter-productive to a competitive marketplace of ideas.

Professor Nancy Leong discusses the various contexts where constitutional lawmaking occurs in a challenge to John Jeffries’ desire for clarification of constitutional law no matter the setting in Rethinking the Order of Battle in Constitutional Torts: A Reply to John Jeffries.  Leong puts forward the idea that the characteristics of various contexts (qualified immunity proceedings, suppression hearings) will inevitably influence the resulting constitutional law.

Finally, in A Personal Constitution, Professor Michael Serota argues that law schools’ failure to address professional values is a problem worthy of remedy, and proposes a solution.

Now on the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, a four-part symposium on the recent Establishment Clause case, Salazar v. Buono.

In the first article, Professor Ian Bartrum discusses how the victory for religious groups may not really be a victory, since the endorsement test now looks to the secularization of religious symbols.

In the second article, Professor Mary Jean Dolan analyzes the new “reasonable observer” portion of the (arguably) expanded endorsement test.

Professor Christopher Lund, in the third article, discusses how the government is forced in cases such as this to define religious symbols (like the cross), and thus threaten to expropriate the meaning of these symbols.

Last, Professor Lisa Roy Shaw explains why the Salazar case did not reach the truly interesting issue of whether the [...]]]>

Now on the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, a four-part symposium on the recent Establishment Clause case, Salazar v. Buono.

In the first article, Professor Ian Bartrum discusses how the victory for religious groups may not really be a victory, since the endorsement test now looks to the secularization of religious symbols.

In the second article, Professor Mary Jean Dolan analyzes the new “reasonable observer” portion of the (arguably) expanded endorsement test.

Professor Christopher Lund, in the third article, discusses how the government is forced in cases such as this to define religious symbols (like the cross), and thus threaten to expropriate the meaning of these symbols.

Last, Professor Lisa Roy Shaw explains why the Salazar case did not reach the truly interesting issue of whether the cross violated the Establishment Clause, but instead settled on procedural grounds.

This summer started off with a three part series from Professor Olufunmilayo B. Arewa looking at the credit crisis and possible changes that would focus on averting future market failures, rather than continuing to create regulations that only address past ones.  Part I of Prof. Arewa’s looks at the failure of risk management within the financial industry.  Part II analyzes the regulatory failures that contributed to the credit crisis as well as potential reforms.  Part III concludes by addressing recent legislation and whether it will actually help solve these very real problems.

Next, Professors Alan Devlin and Michael Jacobs take on an issue at the “heart of a highly divisive, international debate over the proper application of antitrust laws” – what should be done when [...]]]>

This summer started off with a three part series from Professor Olufunmilayo B. Arewa looking at the credit crisis and possible changes that would focus on averting future market failures, rather than continuing to create regulations that only address past ones.  Part I of Prof. Arewa’s looks at the failure of risk management within the financial industry.  Part II analyzes the regulatory failures that contributed to the credit crisis as well as potential reforms.  Part III concludes by addressing recent legislation and whether it will actually help solve these very real problems.

Next, Professors Alan Devlin and Michael Jacobs take on an issue at the “heart of a highly divisive, international debate over the proper application of antitrust laws” – what should be done when a dominant firm refuses to share its intellectual property, even at monopoly prices.

Professor Carter Dillard then discussed the circumstances in which it may be morally permissible, and possibly even legally permissible, for a state to intervene and prohibit procreation.

Rounding out the summer was Professor Clay Calvert’s article looking at journalists’ use of open record laws and death-related privacy rights.  Calvert questions whether journalists have a responsibility beyond simply reporting dying words and graphic images.  He concludes that, at the very least, journalists should listen to the impact their reporting has on surviving family members.

In the past month, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy has published essays relevant to current events and debates.

Professor Zachary Kramer writes in his essay that the U.S. military should not be in the business of regulating sexual status. Rather, the military should focus on regulation of sexual conduct for both hetero- and homosexuals.

Professor John McGinnis discusses a recent major media interest, Artificial Intelligence, and what the best government response to its development should be. He argues that, rather than prohibition or heavy regulation, the government should support the development of so-called “friendly AI,” to both prevent potential threats and develop the many benefits of it.

Several legal scholars, notably Professor Adrian Vermeule, contend that the APA is replete with procedural exceptions, which generate “black holes” [...]]]>

In the past month, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy has published essays relevant to current events and debates.

Professor Zachary Kramer writes in his essay that the U.S. military should not be in the business of regulating sexual status. Rather, the military should focus on regulation of sexual conduct for both hetero- and homosexuals.

Professor John McGinnis discusses a recent major media interest, Artificial Intelligence, and what the best government response to its development should be. He argues that, rather than prohibition or heavy regulation, the government should support the development of so-called “friendly AI,” to both prevent potential threats and develop the many benefits of it.

Several legal scholars, notably Professor Adrian Vermeule, contend that the APA is replete with procedural exceptions, which generate “black holes” where federal agencies are free to act outside the constraints of legal order. Unlike Professor Vermeule, Professor Evan Criddle argues that such black holes are not institutional inevitabilities. Rather, administrative law should be reformed to promote a culture of justification, based on the principle that public officials and agencies serve as fiduciaries for the public.

Finally, in Professor Martin Redish’s new book, Wholesale Justice, he provides a thorough analysis of the constitutional implications of the class action mechanism. In his book review, Douglas Smith expands upon these ideas and discusses other ways in which Professor Redish’s theories may be applied in practice or in which the constitutional concerns he identifies may already be recognized.

For more, go to the Colloquy archives page, and remember to check back each week for new content.

In the past month, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy has published essays relevant to current events and debates. Professors Hollener and Howell write in their essay that the Supreme Court should reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision in HIF Bio. The Federal Circuit erred in concluding that all Cohill remands are subject matter jurisdictional. Courts remand supplemental claims, they argue, because state courts are a better forum to litigate the issues. Professor Walker examines pay-to-play corruption and its implications for campaign finance law. His analysis is particularly salient in light of Gov. Blagojevich’s recent indictment.

Whether people possess fundamental rights and liberties beyond what is written in the Constitution has been debated for centuries. One of the most prominent constitutional scholars, Professor Laurence Tribe, tries to [...]]]>

In the past month, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy has published essays relevant to current events and debates. Professors Hollener and Howell write in their essay that the Supreme Court should reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision in HIF Bio. The Federal Circuit erred in concluding that all Cohill remands are subject matter jurisdictional. Courts remand supplemental claims, they argue, because state courts are a better forum to litigate the issues. Professor Walker examines pay-to-play corruption and its implications for campaign finance law. His analysis is particularly salient in light of Gov. Blagojevich’s recent indictment.

Whether people possess fundamental rights and liberties beyond what is written in the Constitution has been debated for centuries. One of the most prominent constitutional scholars, Professor Laurence Tribe, tries to contribute to that debate. Professor Segall, in his essay, claims that Professor Tribe’s new book fails to advance the debate over whether the United States has an unwritten constitution. Professor Gevurtz weighs in on Stoneridge Investment Partners, v. Scientific-Atlanta, one of the most controversial decisions handed down by the Supreme Court in recent times. Professors Sarma, Smith, and Cohen observe that the Supreme Court has conflated the Fifth Amendment’s protections with the Six Amendment’s right to counsel, causing jurisprudential disorder. Several justices have considered collapsing the right to counsel into the Fifth Amendment. The professors’ essay argues that the justices should resist the temptation to do so.

For more, go to the Colloquy archives page, and remember to check back each week for new content.

Articles

Andrew S. Gold, A Property Theory of Contract, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (2009).

Bruce Ackerman & Jennifer Nou, Canonizing the Civil Rights Revolution: The People and the Poll Tax, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 63 (2009).

Eugene Kontorovich, The “Define and Punish” Clause and the Limits of Universal Jurisdiction, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 149 (2009).

Zachary A. Kramer, Heterosexuality and Title VII, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 205 (2009).

Essays

Randy Beck, Gonzales, Casey, and the Viability Rule, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 249 (2009).

Marcel Kahan & Edward Rock, Hedge Fund Activism in the Enforcement of Bondholder Rights, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 281 (2009).

Howard J. Trienens Visiting Scholar Program

Stephen F. Williams, Preemption: [...]]]> (See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Articles

Andrew S. Gold, A Property Theory of Contract, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (2009).

Bruce Ackerman & Jennifer Nou, Canonizing the Civil Rights Revolution: The People and the Poll Tax, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 63 (2009).

Eugene Kontorovich, The “Define and Punish” Clause and the Limits of Universal Jurisdiction, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 149 (2009).

Zachary A. Kramer, Heterosexuality and Title VII, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 205 (2009).

Essays

Randy Beck, Gonzales, Casey, and the Viability Rule, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 249 (2009).

Marcel Kahan & Edward Rock, Hedge Fund Activism in the Enforcement of Bondholder Rights, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 281 (2009).

Howard J. Trienens Visiting Scholar Program

Stephen F. Williams, Preemption: First Principles, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 323 (2009).

Notes and Comments

Matthew B. Arnould, A Maverick Achieves Something Nobler than Simple Rebellion: Why Sharesleuth Is Legal Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and Why It Should Remain That Way, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 335 (2009).

Courtney Rachel Baron, An Eye for an Eye Leaves Everyone Blind: Fields v. Brown and the Case for Keeping the Bible out of Capital Sentencing Deliberations, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 369 (2009).

William J. Katt, Res Judicata and Rule 19, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 401 (2009).

Colloquy Essays

Catherine M. Sharkey, What Riegel Portends for FDA Preemption of State Law Products Liability Claims, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 437 (2009).

Richard A. Epstein, The Case for Field Preemption of State Laws in Drug Cases, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 463 (2009).

Barry P. McDonald, If Obscenity Were to Discriminate, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 475 (2009).

Recently, the Colloquy has started a dialogue on St. George Tucker. Professor Cornell disputes Hardy’s characterization of St. George Tucker. Hardy, as you’ll remember from his previous colloquy piece, criticized Justice Stevens’ mention of St. George’s work in DC v. Heller. Cornell says Hardy’s description of Tucker as an original public meaning originalist is incorrect.

Professor Zasloff observes that with the new Obama administration taking power, bureaucratic reorganization is inevitable. He then argues that in the realm of international climate change, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is best positioned to design effective international climate change architecture. Speaking of transitioning administrations, Professor Beermann examines the phenomenon of “midnight regulation,” a series of regulations enacted by an outgoing administration when a new one is [...]]]>

Recently, the Colloquy has started a dialogue on St. George Tucker. Professor Cornell disputes Hardy’s characterization of St. George Tucker. Hardy, as you’ll remember from his previous colloquy piece, criticized Justice Stevens’ mention of St. George’s work in DC v. Heller. Cornell says Hardy’s description of Tucker as an original public meaning originalist is incorrect.

Professor Zasloff observes that with the new Obama administration taking power, bureaucratic reorganization is inevitable. He then argues that in the realm of international climate change, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is best positioned to design effective international climate change architecture. Speaking of transitioning administrations, Professor Beermann examines the phenomenon of “midnight regulation,” a series of regulations enacted by an outgoing administration when a new one is waiting to take over.

The United States form of elected government differs from those of other countries through the lens of the executive appointment process. In our form of government, as Professor Fontana observes in his essay, after a POTUS is elected, there is a scramble for who gets what position on the transition team. In other countries, there are systems set up of appointing those in the losing political coalition to various executive positions. Thus, in other countries, it is much easier to identify who are the minority party leaders.

Professor Ghosh examines the three fundamental tenets of intellectual property rights and competition policy and their application to a preliminary report released by the European Commission in November 2008.

The New York Times reported that prior to the passage of California’s Proposition 8, churches played an active role in supporting the initiative. Gay rights advocates and others have argued that the churches’ support violate federal law restricting political activity by tax-exempt charities. Professor Galle analyzes the merits to this argument in his essay.

A growing trend in corporate law is the notable increase of independent directors appointed to corporate boards. Professors Sharfman and Toll argue that the “independence” sought by corporations is useless without “independence of mind.”

For more, go to the Colloquy archives page, and remember to check back each week for new content.

In the past few months, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy has published essays contributing to several existing and new colloquies. Amos N. Guiora wrote an essay about military commissions and national security courts, which added to the colloquy on the Military Commissions Act. Click here to view all of the essays in the colloquy on a single page. Salil Mehra wrote an essay regarding building antitrust agency capacity that responded to an earlier essay on the subject by D. Daniel Sokol. Both essays can be viewed by clicking here.

Additionally, the Colloquy recently published an essay by Paul Horwitz that began a discussion on presidential transitions. In conjunction with this colloquy, we republished a series of essays by Seth Barrett [...]]]>

In the past few months, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy has published essays contributing to several existing and new colloquies. Amos N. Guiora wrote an essay about military commissions and national security courts, which added to the colloquy on the Military Commissions Act. Click here to view all of the essays in the colloquy on a single page. Salil Mehra wrote an essay regarding building antitrust agency capacity that responded to an earlier essay on the subject by D. Daniel Sokol. Both essays can be viewed by clicking here.

Additionally, the Colloquy recently published an essay by Paul Horwitz that began a discussion on presidential transitions. In conjunction with this colloquy, we republished a series of essays by Seth Barrett Tillman and Brian C. Kalt that were originally published in volume 101 of the Colloquy. To view all of the essays on one page click here. We will be publishing several more essays regarding presidential transitions in the coming weeks.

We have continued to focus on recent Supreme Court cases with an essay on City of Pleasant Grove v. Summun by Paul E. McGreal. We have also published stand-alone essays on various topics, such as an essay by Alex B. Long on recent amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act, an essay by Jennifer S. Hendricks that proposes revisions to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an essay by Adam N. Steinman that addresses proposed amendments to Rule 56 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and an essay by David T. Hardy that discusses the lecture notes of St. George Tucker. This week, we published an essay by Mitchell H. Rubinstein concerning an interesting case where an attorney and his nurse clients were criminally charged after the nurses resigned en mass.

For more, go to the Colloquy archives page, and remember to check back each week for new content.

It has been a busy summer and fall for the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy. We have focused on timely issues including several recent Supreme Court decisions, and we have published several colloquies as well as stand alone pieces. Recent colloquies have included discussions of: The Military Commissions Act of 2006, Preemption of State Laws in Drug Cases, Capital Punishment for Child Rape Offenders, and Antitrust and the Internet. Click on the respective links to view all of the essays on a single page. Additionally, click on the links below to access each of our recent essays.

[pdf]   Douglas A. Berman & Stephanos Bibas A Floor, Not a Ceiling: Federalism and Remedies for Violations of Constitutional Rights in Danforth v. Minnesota 

[pdf] [...]]]>

It has been a busy summer and fall for the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy. We have focused on timely issues including several recent Supreme Court decisions, and we have published several colloquies as well as stand alone pieces. Recent colloquies have included discussions of: The Military Commissions Act of 2006, Preemption of State Laws in Drug Cases, Capital Punishment for Child Rape Offenders, and Antitrust and the Internet. Click on the respective links to view all of the essays on a single page. Additionally, click on the links below to access each of our recent essays.

For more, go to the Colloquy archives page, and remember to check back each week for new content.

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 102:2 (Special Issue 2008)

(See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Symposium on Ordering State-Federal Relations Through Federal Preemption Doctrine

Nury Raquel Agudo & Alison E. Buckley, Foreward: Symposium on Ordering State-Federal Relations Through Federal Preemption Doctrine, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 503 (2008)

David A. Dana, Democratizing the Law of Federal Preemption, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 507 (2008)

Richard A. Epstein, Federal Preemption, and Federal Common Law, in Nuisance Cases, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 551 (2008)

Robert L. Glicksman & Richard E. Levy, A Collective Action Perspective on Ceiling Preemption by Federal Environmental Regulation: The Case of Global Climate Change, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 579 (2008)

Howard A. Learner, Restraining Federal Preemption When There Is [...]]]>

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 102:2 (Special Issue 2008)

(See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Symposium on Ordering State-Federal Relations Through Federal Preemption Doctrine

Nury Raquel Agudo & Alison E. Buckley, Foreward: Symposium on Ordering State-Federal Relations Through Federal Preemption Doctrine, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 503 (2008)

David A. Dana, Democratizing the Law of Federal Preemption, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 507 (2008)

Richard A. Epstein, Federal Preemption, and Federal Common Law, in Nuisance Cases, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 551 (2008)

Robert L. Glicksman & Richard E. Levy, A Collective Action Perspective on Ceiling Preemption by Federal Environmental Regulation: The Case of Global Climate Change, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 579 (2008)

Howard A. Learner, Restraining Federal Preemption When There Is an “Emerging Consensus” of State Environmental Laws and Policies, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 649 (2008)

Raymond B. Ludwiszewski & Charles H. Haake, Cars, Carbon, and Climate Change, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 665 (2008)

Nina A. Mendelson, A Presumption Against Agency Preemption, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 695 (2008)

Thomas W. Merrill, Preemption and Institutional Choice, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 727 (2008)

Mark D. Rosen, Contextualizing Preemption, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 781 (2008)

Robert A. Schapiro, Monophonic Preemption, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 811 (2008)

Catherine M. Sharkey, The Fraud Caveat to Agency Preemption, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 841 (2008)

Ernest A. Young, Executive Preemption, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 869 (2008)

Comments

Patricia B. Hsue, Lessons from United States v. Stein: Is the Line Between Criminal and Civil Sanctions for Illegal Tax Shelters a Dot?, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 903 (2008)

Kristin H. Berger Parker, Ambient Harassment Under Title VII: Reconsidering the Workplace Environment, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 945 (2008)

Joshua S. Press, Teachers, Leave Those Kids Alone? On Free Speech and Shouting Fiery Epithets in a Crowded Dormitory, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 987 (2008)

Colloquy Essay

Kathryn A. Watts & Amy J. Wildermuth, Massachusetts v. EPA: Breaking New Ground on Issues Other than Global Warming, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1029 (2008)

This week, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy published an Essay by Professor William H. Page and Mr. Seldon J. Childers that discusses the Microsoft-Samba agreement. This Essay is part of an ongoing colloquy started by Professor David S. Evans in an Essay discussing issues that the internet poses for antitrust law.

The Colloquy has also recently started a dialogue on the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn. Professor Mitchell H. Rubinstein began this discussion in his Essay, and we look forward to continuing it this summer. Additionally, we continued our colloquy on climate change legislation with a piece by Professor Hari M. Osofsky.

Due to our emphasis on timely pieces, we have also recently published an Essay [...]]]>

This week, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy published an Essay by Professor William H. Page and Mr. Seldon J. Childers that discusses the Microsoft-Samba agreement. This Essay is part of an ongoing colloquy started by Professor David S. Evans in an Essay discussing issues that the internet poses for antitrust law.

The Colloquy has also recently started a dialogue on the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn. Professor Mitchell H. Rubinstein began this discussion in his Essay, and we look forward to continuing it this summer. Additionally, we continued our colloquy on climate change legislation with a piece by Professor Hari M. Osofsky.

Due to our emphasis on timely pieces, we have also recently published an Essay by Professor Richard L. Hasen debating the constitutionality of Congressional measures to reform presidential primaries. We also published a piece by Professor Amy J. Wildermuth arguing for an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of Bell Atlantic Court v. Twombly right before the May 1st deadline for the Supreme Court to announce Rules revisions. Professor Holning Lau also wrote an Essay analyzing the effect of globalization on human rights protections, with a focus upon homosexual rights, which includes commentary on the recent California decision to allow same-sex marriage.

Finally, the Colloquy also published interesting Essays by Professor Brian G. Slocum (hyperlink: ) analyzing contractionist statutory interpretations and Mr. Aaron R. Petty arguing that the unavailability requirement of the Sixth Amendment should be lowered in situations where there is forfeiture by wrongdoing.

For more, go to the Colloquy archives page, and remember to check back each week for new content.

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 102:1 (Winter 2008)

(See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Articles

Nestor M. Davidson, The Problem of Equality in Takings, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (2008)

Scott Dodson, In Search of Removal Jurisdiction, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 55 (2008)

Timothy P. Glynn, Delaware’s VantagePoint: The Empire Strikes Back in the Post-Post-Enron Era, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 91 (2008)

Andy G. Olree, James Madison and Legislative Chaplains, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 145 (2008)

Essays

Yuval Feldman & Doron Teichman, Are All “Legal Dollars” Created Equal?, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 223 (2008)

Tonja Jacobi & Gwendolyn Carroll, Acknowledging Guilt: Forcing Self-Identification in Post-Conviction DNA Testing, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 263 (2008)

Comments

Sarah E. Agudo, Irregular Passion: The Unconstitutionality [...]]]>

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 102:1 (Winter 2008)

(See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Articles

Nestor M. Davidson, The Problem of Equality in Takings, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (2008)

Scott Dodson, In Search of Removal Jurisdiction, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 55 (2008)

Timothy P. Glynn, Delaware’s VantagePoint: The Empire Strikes Back in the Post-Post-Enron Era, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 91 (2008)

Andy G. Olree, James Madison and Legislative Chaplains, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 145 (2008)

Essays

Yuval Feldman & Doron Teichman, Are All “Legal Dollars” Created Equal?, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 223 (2008)

Tonja Jacobi & Gwendolyn Carroll, Acknowledging Guilt: Forcing Self-Identification in Post-Conviction DNA Testing, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 263 (2008)

Comments

Sarah E. Agudo, Irregular Passion: The Unconstitutionality and Inefficacy of Sex Offender Residency Laws, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 307 (2008)

Dan Fenske, All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic: Erasing the Distinction Between Foreign and Domestic Intelligence Gathering Under the Fourth Amendment, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 343 (2008)

Sena Ku, The Supreme Court’s GVR Power: Drawing a Line Between Deference and Control, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 383 (2008)

Colloquy Essay

David McGowan, What Tool Works Tells Us About Tailoring Patent Misuse Remedies, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 421 (2008)

Special Section: 2006 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention

Panel I: Limited Government and Spreading Democracy: Uneasy Cousins?

A. Raymond Randolph, Spreading Democracy, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 431 (2008)

Kenneth Wollack, Democracy Promotion: Serving U.S. Values and Interests, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 433 (2008)

François-Henri Briard, France and the United States: Not So Far from Each Other, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 437 (2008)

Tom G. Palmer, Democracy and the Contest for Liberty, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 443 (2008)

William Kristol, Limited Government and Spreading Democracy: Two Fronts, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 449 (2008)

Panel III: Are Constitutional Changes Necessary to Limit Government?

David B. Sentelle, Introductory Remarks, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 455 (2008)

William N. Eskridge, Jr., No Easy Constitutional Solution for Big Government, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 457 (2008)

Daniel H. Lowenstein, Term Limits, Initiatives, and Other Gimmickry, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 461 (2008)

Richard D. Parker, Two Concepts of Government, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 465 (2008)

Frank H. Easterbrook, On Constitutional Changes to Limit Government, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 469 (2008)

Panel IV: The Role of Government in Defining Our Culture

Edwin Meese III, Introductory Remarks, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477 (2008)

Walter E. Dellinger III, Cultural Values and Government, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 479 (2008)

Charles Murray, The (Im)proper Role of Government in Defining Our Culture, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 483 (2008)

Anthony D. Romero, “Limited Government” and the Betrayal of American Values, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 487 (2008)

Phyllis Schlafly, How the Government Influences Our Culture, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 491 (2008)

William N. Eskridge, Jr., How Government Unintentionally Influences Culture (The Case of Same-Sex Marriage), 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 495 (2008)

Hadley P. Arkes, The Role of Government in Shaping Culture, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 499 (2008)

This week, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy published a response by Professor Scott Dodson regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowles v. Russell. He responded to critiques by Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Mr. E. King Poor, and Professor Perry Dane and defended his position that the Court disrupted prior precedent in Bowles. To see all of the pieces in the series, click here.

Last week, Professor Howard M. Wasserman responded to Professor Dodson’s Article In Search of Removal Jurisdiction, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 55 (2008). His Essay examines the connections between jurisdiction, merits, and procedure, when the connections come into play, and how to separate them out.

On February 11, Professor Robert L. Glicksman participated in the ongoing debate on climate change [...]]]>

This week, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy published a response by Professor Scott Dodson regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowles v. Russell. He responded to critiques by Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Mr. E. King Poor, and Professor Perry Dane and defended his position that the Court disrupted prior precedent in Bowles. To see all of the pieces in the series, click here.

Last week, Professor Howard M. Wasserman responded to Professor Dodson’s Article In Search of Removal Jurisdiction, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 55 (2008). His Essay examines the connections between jurisdiction, merits, and procedure, when the connections come into play, and how to separate them out.

On February 11, Professor Robert L. Glicksman participated in the ongoing debate on climate change legislation. He discussed which federal agencies should be responsible for implementing climate change regulation, the proper measure of discretion that Congress should afford these various agencies, and whether the regulation should trump state and local initiatives. To see all pieces in the series, click here.

For more, go to the Colloquy archives page, and remember to check back each week for new content.

The Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy celebrated its first full year of publishing online content in 2007, and we look forward to publishing new pieces throughout 2008. Please be sure to check back weekly for new pieces.

Today, we published the most recent piece in our ongoing series concerning climate change legislation. You can view Professor Rose’s piece here; and you can see all pieces related to climate change here. Keep an eye out in the coming weeks for more contributions to this topic.

We’ve also published more pieces in the past few weeks concerning temporal jurisdiction and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowles v. Russell. To see all of the pieces in that series, click here.

Continue reading for some of the highlights [...]]]>

The Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy celebrated its first full year of publishing online content in 2007, and we look forward to publishing new pieces throughout 2008. Please be sure to check back weekly for new pieces.

Today, we published the most recent piece in our ongoing series concerning climate change legislation. You can view Professor Rose’s piece here; and you can see all pieces related to climate change here. Keep an eye out in the coming weeks for more contributions to this topic.

We’ve also published more pieces in the past few weeks concerning temporal jurisdiction and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowles v. Russell. To see all of the pieces in that series, click here.

Continue reading for some of the highlights of the past year.

Ideological Drift of Supreme Court Justices

Professors Epstein et al. contributed an essay collecting empirical evidence of ideological drift among Supreme Court justices, in advance of their full-length publication in the Law Review. The essay drew a variety of responses, including a response from Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times. Click here for a list of all the posts in that series.

Originalism

In January 2007, Professors McGinnis and Rappaport wrote an essay entitled A Pragmatic Defense of Originalism. This sparked a spirited exchange, with contributions from Professors Leib, Law, and McGowan. Click here for all of the posts in that series.

Post-Kelo Reforms

Professors Dana and Somin debated the effect of post-Kelo reforms on the poor, especially considering the effect that such legislation would have on “blight” condemnation. Click here for a list of the posts in that exchange.

For a listing of all the debates we’ve hosted on the Colloquy, click here.

We have also hosted a number of excellent independent pieces in the last year, including Professor Reynold’s piece on the constitutionality of Dick Cheney and Professor Bennett’s timely piece on electoral vote reform in California. For more, check out our archives, and as always, check back each week for new content.

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 101:4 (Fall 2007)

(See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Articles

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn & Jeffrey A. Segal, Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1483 (2007)

M. Todd Henderson, Paying CEOs in Bankruptcy: Executive Compensation When Agency Costs are Low, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1543 (2007)

Craig Allen Nard & John F. Duffy, Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1619 (2007)

Jonathan Remy Nash & Richard L. Revesz, Grandfathering and Environmental Regulation: The Law and Economics of New Source Review, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1677 (2007)

S. Jay Plager & Lynne E. Pettigrew, Rethinking Patent [...]]]>

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 101:4 (Fall 2007)

(See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Articles

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn & Jeffrey A. Segal, Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1483 (2007)

M. Todd Henderson, Paying CEOs in Bankruptcy: Executive Compensation When Agency Costs are Low, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1543 (2007)

Craig Allen Nard & John F. Duffy, Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1619 (2007)

Jonathan Remy Nash & Richard L. Revesz, Grandfathering and Environmental Regulation: The Law and Economics of New Source Review, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1677 (2007)

S. Jay Plager & Lynne E. Pettigrew, Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle: A Response to Nard & Duffy, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1735 (2007)

Essay

Katherine Y. Barnes, Is Affirmative Action Responsible for the Achievement Gap Between Black and White Law Students?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1759 (2007)

Review Essay

Russell K. Robinson, Uncovering Covering, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1809 (2007)

Note

Daniel Su, Substantial Similarity and Architectural Works: Filtering Out “Total Concept and Feel”, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1851 (2007)

Colloquy Essays

Linda Greenhouse, Justices Who Change: A Response to Epstein et al., 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1885 (2007)

Ward Farnsworth, The Use and Limits of Martin-Quinn Scores to Assess Supreme Court Justices, with Special Attention to the Problem of Ideological Drift, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1891 (2007)

Ethan J. Leib, Why Supermajoritarianism Does Not Illuminate the Interpretive Debate Between Originalists and Non-Originalists, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1905 (2007)

John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism and Supermajoritarianism: Defending the Nexus, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1919 (2007)

Ilya Somin, Is Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform Bad for the Poor?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1931 (2007)