The Rehnquist Revolution

[Excerpt] When historians look back at the Rehnquist Court, without a doubt they will say that its greatest changes in constitutional law were in the area of federalism. Over the past decade, and particularly over the last five years, the Supreme Court has dramatically limited the scope of Congress’ powers and has greatly expanded the protection of state Sovereign Immunity. Virtually every area of law, criminal and civil, is touched by these changes. Since I began teaching constitutional law in 1980, the most significant differences in constitutional law are a result of the Supreme Court’s revival of federalism as a constraint on federal power

Challenging Direct Democracy

I want to argue today that direct democracy is undesirable and unconstitutional. I want to argue to you that the Supreme Court should find that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is unconstitutional, and strike it down. So I want to make two points. First, I am going to argue that direct democracy is undesirable. This is a normative argument; it’s not an argument about constitutional doctrine. Second, I want to argue that direct democracy is unconstitutional, and make a series of different arguments as to why

In Defense of Judicial Supremacy

“Judicial supremacy” is the idea that the Supreme Court should be viewed as the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution and that we should deem its decisions as binding on the other branches and levels of government, until and unless constitutional amendment or subsequent decision overrules them. This is desirable because we want to have an authoritative interpreter of the Constitution and the Court is best suited to play this role. Under this view, doctrines which keep federal courts from enforcing constitutional provisions—such as denying standing for generalized grievances, the political question doctrine, and the state secrets doctrine—are misguided and should be abandoned