Interactions 2012

In each issue of Interactions, the School’s annual magazine you will find stories about students, faculty and alumni from each of our disciplines. Learn about the ways our students, faculty and alumni are impacting their communities through health care outreach. Read about their research and how they are contributing to advances in patient care. Meet our Alumni of the Year and get to know our faculty.https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/interactions/1003/thumbnail.jp

Interactions 2010

In each issue of Interactions, the School’s annual magazine you will find stories about students, faculty and alumni from each of our disciplines. Learn about the ways our students, faculty and alumni are impacting their communities through health care outreach. Read about their research and how they are contributing to advances in patient care. Meet our Alumni of the Year and get to know our faculty.https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/interactions/1001/thumbnail.jp

Interactions 2011

In each issue of Interactions, the School’s annual magazine you will find stories about students, faculty and alumni from each of our disciplines. Learn about the ways our students, faculty and alumni are impacting their communities through health care outreach. Read about their research and how they are contributing to advances in patient care. Meet our Alumni of the Year and get to know our faculty.https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/interactions/1002/thumbnail.jp

Honor Roll of Donors

Gifts from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 201

The Term Limits Case

In U.S. Term Limits, the Court reviewed an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution, adopted in 1992, that made a candidate for the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives ineligible to have his or her name placed on the ballot for national election if that person had previously been elected to three or more terms as a member of the House, or two or more terms as a member of the Senate. Following a taxpayer\u27s complaint seeking declaratory relief, the state circuit court held that this amendment violated the Qualifications Clauses in Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, in a five to two decision, with a plurality declaring that states have no authority to change, add, or diminish the requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses. Such piecemeal restrictions by states, explained the plurality, would conflict with the interest of the drafters of the Constitution in qualification uniformity, since congressional representatives address national issues that affect the citizens of every state

The Constitutional Structure and the Jurisprudence of Justice Scalia

Commentators generally regard federalism and separation of powers as distinct features of the constitutional structure. In reality, these doctrines were designed to work together to further the same goals: to avoid tyranny and to preserve individual liberty. Professor Thomas Merrill overlooks this connection in a recent attempt to explain the Supreme Court\u27s decision making process under Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Professor Merrill maintains that there have been two Rehnquist Courts: one from 1986 to 1994, and another from 1994 to the present. In Professor Merrill\u27s view, the first Rehnquist Court focused on social issues - such as abortion, affirmative action, and school prayer - with relatively few important doctrinal innovations in these areas. The second Rehnquist Court, by contrast, focused on constitutional federalism, including the scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment limitations on federal power, and state sovereign immunity from private lawsuits reflected in the Eleventh Amendment. Unlike the first Rehnquist Court, the second has generated a number of important innovations. Professor Merrill also suggests that Justice Antonin Scalia made a strategic choice to shift his priorities from social issues to constitutional federalism circa 1994. This hypothesis is unpersuasive. As Professor Merrill acknowledges, Justice Scalia had little occasion to consider questions of constitutional federalism before he was appointed to the Supreme Court. Thus, it is not surprising that Justice Scalia did not arrive on the Court with a full-fledged federalism agenda or that he preferred to wait for briefing and argument before reaffirming an important precedent like Hans v. Louisiana. From the beginning, however, Justice Scalia has been a strong proponent of constitutional federalism. In fact, with only one arguable exception, Justice Scalia has voted to uphold the constitutional prerogatives of the states in every major federalism case decided since he joined the Court. Justice Scalia does appear to have an agenda of sorts in federalism cases, although not the one that Professor Merrill suggests. Justice Scalia\u27s goal in these cases is to uphold the original constitutional structure in order to respect the Founders\u27 constitutional design and to protect individual liberty. Professor Merrill acknowledges Justice Scalia\u27s interest in the constitutional separation of powers, but fails to recognize the connection between separation of powers and federalism. Neither feature of the constitutional structure was meant to be an end in itself. Rather, both separation of powers and federalism were designed to check government power and to secure individual liberty. Thus, even though Justice Scalia had little occasion to consider questions of constitutional federalism before he was appointed to the Supreme Court, it is not surprising that he quickly came to regard federalism - like separation of powers - as an essential element of the Founders\u27 constitutional design