Forgive me if my recollection is inaccurate, but did not Texas waive its
split option as a condition of re-entering the union following the
Civil War? If so, this option did not perish over time, but was
cancelled.
John C. Eastman
Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
Director, The
Title: Message
Francisco Martin wrote:Also, you are conflating nationhood with
statehood. The concepts are different.
I must confess that I don't know what you are getting at
here. Statehood as in "state" on the international stage, which means
nation. Or statehood as in the domestic U.S.
Not Marshall (or Joseph Story, for that matter), but Wilson. And the
difference is significant. Marshall would view the new regime as ONLY a
national government. Wilson recognized, rightly, in my view, that the
people acted in different capacities, as a national people for some
purposes, and as
I don't dispute #1 or #2 on Earl's list, but I do take issue with #3.
The ratification conventions were expressly NOT held under the authority
of the state governments, but by separate ratifying conventions unknown
to any of the existing state governmental structures. The reason for
this was
While not addressing the Articles of Confederation, the Kmiec, Presser
(2d edition to be Kmiec, Presser, Eastman, for a little SSP) The
American Constitutional Order begins with Chapter 1 devoted to natural
law historical foundations of the Constitutiona and with Chapter 2
specifically addressing
Title: Message
Let's
make the Alabama case a more appropriate hypothetical. Suppose that the
Alabama Supreme Court had ruled (rather than Chief Justice Moore simply
asserting) that the monument was not a violation of the Establishment
Clause. Marbury simply holds that it is the province of
The Supremacy clause says that the judges of each state shall be bound
by the federal constitution and laws, but it doesn't say anything about
being bound by interpretations of them by inferior federal courts.
True, Congress has the authority to establish inferior courts (and does
not have the
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eastman, John
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 10:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Original Meaning of the Judicial Power
Randy,
I've just had a chance to read your paper on Marbury, which has in part
pre-empted my own on a similar subject, to be delivered
School of Law
-Original Message-
From: Eastman, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 4:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CA9 takes case in banc
The confusion about polling places claim is really nonsense.
California election officials change polling places
Professor Martin,
Is it your view, in light of the invalidation of the U.S. Reservation by the U.N.
Human Rights Committee, that the Convention Against Turture is not binding on the U.S.
because its partial (or conditional) ratification was not accepted? Or is it (as I
suspect) that the
petitions granted today. We're providing info on SCOTUSblog:
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/index.cfm
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/index.cfm .
- Original Message -
From: Eastman, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
, Andrew Jackson and the
Judiciary, Political Science Quarterly (1956).
Keith Whittington
-Original Message-
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John
Sent: Wednesday, October 01
and the
Judiciary, Political Science Quarterly (1956).
Keith Whittington
-Original Message-
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:33 PM
Title: Message
The
ACLU's assertion appears to be based on an estimate made by Professor
Brady. Has anyone seen the evidence to support this factual
assertion? If true, and assuming that 44% of the state's 10 million voters
who went to the polls were in the punchcard counties, that makes
Also significant, I think, is that the Supreme Court DENIED the cert
petition from the United States (and also the petition that had been
filed by Newdow himself), although it did invite the Solicitor General
to submit a brief in the case in which it granted cert.
John C. Eastman
Professor of
rsons in
uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military
salute."
In other words, the U.S.
prevailed in the court below.
The real locus of dispute, as reflected
intoday's denials and singlegrant,is the school board's
policy, not the federal statute.
Title: Message
Yes,
there is reason to be concerned -- but overturning Flast seems first and
foremost to have been a project of Justice Scalia's. I think he is wrong
about that -- as does Richard Epstein in an important article, Standing and
Spending, in the Chapman Law Review a few years
Sandy is correct to state that federal funds for a localized disaster
violates the original understanding of the 'general welfare' clause, as
evidenced by the belief by a prevailing majority in Congress that it had
no constitutional authority to come to the aid of Savannah after a fire
destroyed
In the late 1980s, and perhaps beyond, there were RICO prosecutions
against Operation Rescue and even against their lawyers (at least
threats of RICO prosecutions; I don't recall whether any of the threats
against law firms actually materialized), for coordinating non-violent
protests at abortion
19 matches
Mail list logo
