Maybe he needs some good plumbers. A few of them are still around.
John T. Parry
Associate Professor of Law
University of Pittsburgh School of Law
3900 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
412-648-7006
-Original Message-
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:[EMAIL
I'm
passing along this call for papers. The conference is a great,
interdisciplinary event. Sorry for overlapping postings.
John
Parry
University
of Pittsburgh School of Law
5th
Global Conference
Perspectives
on Evil and Human
If indoctrination impairs critical thinking/reasoning skills, would
school authorities in fact be entirely within their rights to
indoctrinate? I realize there is an aspect to this thought that may not
be relevant to the constitution.
Isabel Medina
Loyola University New Orleans
School of Law
The current practice is as Margo describes: any individual Justice can CFR,
and CFRs aren't published as regular orders. The same is true, I think, for
CFRecords. CVSGs are a different matter, and thus they appear on orders
lists.
From: Margo Schlanger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Discussion
I'm delighted to include federalism, but the question raised by
federalism is its limits, i.e., is the possibility of secession
addressed. I take the liberty of including a link to a Findlaw
essay discussing this question in the context of Iraq.
SECESSION AND THE FUTURE OF
IRAQ: Should the
Prof. Levinson correctly points out the problem of secession with federalist forms of government when a state believes that either another state or the federal government itself has violated the constitution. However,the legal (and often practical)answer is either to explicitly provide for
I've been worrying about # 7 on Sandy's list (establishment of religion),
with respect not only to the issue of constitutional drafting but also
recent published reports about our role in the restructuring of Iraq's
public education system, where, as I understand it, we have put some
pressure on
I saw a very similar quote on a news web site (MSNBC, I think) that omitted
any reference to the administrative branch. I don't know how reliable the
Yahoo site is from which the quote is taken, but it may not be an accurate
quote.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
I did not mean to send the last message. After writing it, but before
sending it, I did a little research and found that the Yahoo story is
correct; at least it is correct if the White House press office transcript
is accurate. The Yahoo site is simply a republication of a press release
issued by
That would be Andrew Jackson in response to Worcester v. Georgia, and it is generally
regarded as apocryphal (though somewhat consistent with other things that he did say,
predicting that such a decision would be unenforceable). He did write in a letter,
the decision of the supreme court has
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Eastman, John wrote:
I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to
a particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued
its ruling, now let it enforce it.
Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for
I agree with Mark's (curing?) construction of the President's
phrasing. In part, this is simply because administrative branch is --
and has for some time been -- a perfectly acceptable way of referring
to the executive branch. See, e.g., Unexcelled Chem. Corp. v. United
States, 345 U.S. 59, 65
A line like this is usually attributed to Andrew Jackson in
connection with Worcester v. Georgia: John Marshall
has made his decision, now let him enforce it. R. Kent
Newmyer, in John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court
(LSU, 2001), says: As it turns out, these famous words were
In response to the Court's decision (per Marshall, C.J.) in Worcester v.
Georgia, Andrew Jackson supposedly said John Marshall has made his ruling,
now let him enforce it. Whether he actually said this remains unclear, I
think.
Trevor Morrison
From: Eastman, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
I had always thought this quote was from Andrew Jackson, in response to a decision,
maybe by Marshall, regarding Native American treaty rights. But I don't know that for
a fact.
Bill Araiza
Loyola (L.A.)
Eastman, John wrote:
I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other,
Thanks, Keith. I almost sent the note just to you! But I needed it quickly, so on
the chance you were not on e-mail, sent it to the whole list.
Cheers,
John
-Original Message-
From: Keith E. Whittington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/1/2003 2:40 PM
The general consensus among historians is that Jackson did not actually say
this in so many words. However, as I note in my book Native American
Sovereignty on Trial, that amounts to quibbling, because he said and did
things that in effect amounted to the same thing. Anyway, the origin of
this
I love the collaberations made possible by this list. I now have to expand my
acknowledgement footnote significantly. Many thanks to all who responded.
I have one more that might be equally interesting. Judges serve for good behaviour.
Impeachment requires high crimes and misdemeanors. I
This was Andrew Jackson in response to one of the Indian removal cases
(Worcester v. Georgia).
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Eastman, John wrote:
I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a
particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued its ruling,
This is not precisely on point, however I know that there have been many
proposals to impeach justices for non-criminal conduct. For example, some
conservative congressmen sought to impeach William O. Douglas.
Then-minority leader Gerald Ford argued that Congress had the right to
impeach justices
This may not be directly relevant to the criminal versus non-criminal
distinction, but I think the general question was debated in Congress
during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, with President Clinton's
defenders arguing that the standard for impeaching the President (at
least) should be
Eastman, John wrote:
Judges serve for good behaviour. Impeachment requires high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe we have not taken seriously the possibility of impeachment of judges for non-criminal conduct for a very long time (since Justice Chase?), but has there ever been a firm decision
You might look at Emily Van Tassel and Paul FInkelman, IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES: A
Documentary History of Impeacement (CQ PRESS)
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On impeachment, I have contemporary discussion of the issue in
the Chase and Johnson impeachments in my Constitutional
Construction book.
My apologies. That more-than-usual self-promotion was intended as a private email to
John Eastman rather than a public posting to the listserv.
Keith
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2003 6:27 pm
Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court
On
The quotation is attributed Andrew Jackson in the wake of the decision in
Worcester v. Georgia. It may be mythical.
At 02:33 PM 10/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a
particular court ruling, along the lines of: The Court has issued
Others have suggested even if the quote is apocryphal (it's hard not to think so) that
it accurately describes Jackson's position. I am not certain that is the case.
Robert Remini suggests, with some authority, that Jackson never would have said it
because he would not have accepted the
26 matches
Mail list logo
