Georgetown Law Journal最新文献

The Intelligence Intellectuals 聪明的知识分子

2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.1353/book.136303

Peter Grace

引用次数: 0

Structures of Virtue and Vice 善与恶的结构

2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-02-01 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv1gm00rq.10

引用次数: 0

Codifying Constitutional Norms 编纂宪法规范

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-01-19 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3769465

Jon B. Gould

{"title":"Codifying Constitutional Norms","authors":"Jon B. Gould","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3769465","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3769465","url":null,"abstract":"Ours is an era of fraying constitutional norms. Norms that long governed the conduct of public officials have in recent years been violated by the White House, in Congress, and in the states. In the face of threats to constitutional norms, some have proposed codifying constitutional norms—that is, enacting their content into law. \u0000 \u0000This Article examines the dynamics around codifying constitutional norms. It begins by showing that codification efforts face both practical and legal barriers. Practically, it can be difficult to define the precise contours of a constitutional norm and to codify a norm in a polarized political environment. Legally, constitutional law precludes Congress from codifying many of the most important constitutional norms. \u0000 \u0000The Article then shows that codifying constitutional norms can have significant potential benefits, but that codification is not without costs. Codification holds the promise of promoting greater compliance with norms, typically by making them legally enforceable, but codification can have unintended consequences and in some cases may actually weaken norms. Codification can clarify and stabilize norms that might otherwise be vague or unstable, but codification also risks ossifying norms by denying them the ability to evolve. And codifying a norm can shift power among institutional actors, including by giving courts a role where they previously had none. \u0000 \u0000Finally, the Article contends that understanding the benefits and costs of codification provides insight into when and how codification is appropriate. The desirability of codification will depend on the institution doing the codifying and the legal vehicle being used for codification. Codification will be more appropriate for rule-like norms than for standard-like norms. Codification through soft law or rules internal to a branch of government may sometimes be superior to codification via a judicially enforceable statute. And norms can be protected indirectly, rather than through directly codifying their content. Even when codifying norms is possible and advisable, however, codification cannot serve as a substitute for better politics.","PeriodicalId":47702,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Journal","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83359353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Precedent, Three-Judge District Courts, and the Law of Democracy 判例、三法官地区法院和民主法律

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2019-02-03 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3099771

Joshua A. Douglas, Michael E. Solimine

{"title":"Precedent, Three-Judge District Courts, and the Law of Democracy","authors":"Joshua A. Douglas, Michael E. Solimine","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3099771","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3099771","url":null,"abstract":"As recent partisan gerrymandering cases have shown, three-judge district courts play a unique and important role in how the federal judiciary considers significant election law disputes. Yet two somewhat quirky procedural questions involving these courts remain unresolved: first, is a Supreme Court ruling to summarily affirm a three-judge district court’s decision precedential on all future courts? That is, why should a one-line order from the Supreme Court, without explanation, formally bind all future courts on the issue, especially when it is unclear what aspect of the lower court’s decision was correct? Second, must a three-judge district court follow, as mandatory authority, circuit precedent in the circuit in which it sits, even though an appeal from the ruling of a three-judge district court will skip the court of appeals and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court? \u0000 \u0000This Article tackles these problems and provides clear-cut answers, which will ultimately improve judicial decision making for some of the most important cases that the federal judiciary hears given their effect on democracy. On the first question, we find that summary decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are entitled to zero or very little precedential value, and therefore that the Justices need not feel obliged to hear these cases in full if they want the issue to percolate in the lower courts first. Yet there should be a presumption in favor of the Court providing legal guidance on the issue, meaning that most of the time it should set the case for oral argument and provide a full written opinion. On the second question, we conclude that circuit precedent is not formally binding on three-judge district courts, although of course in many cases it will be highly persuasive. \u0000 \u0000Procedural questions stemming from three-judge district courts impact their substantive rulings, which mostly involve redistricting and campaign finance. Resolving these two questions on the procedures involving three-judge district courts will help to ensure that these special courts operate as Congress intended, ultimately improving our electoral system.","PeriodicalId":47702,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Journal","volume":"120 1","pages":"413"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88306700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Managing an Ethical Dental Practice 管理道德牙科执业

2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-05-18 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvvngwh.13

引用次数: 0

INTRODUCTION: 作品简介:

2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-05-01 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvvnh6z.5

引用次数: 0

Privatizing Criminal Procedure 刑事诉讼私有化

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-04-02 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3156230

John D. King

引用次数: 0

Integrating Colloquial Arabic in the Classroom: 将阿拉伯语口语融入课堂：

2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2017-12-04 DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv1fj85jd.17

Martin Isleem

引用次数: 1

The Decline of the Virginia (and American) Death Penalty 弗吉尼亚(和美国)死刑的衰落

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2017-04-04 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2674604

Brandon L. Garrett

{"title":"The Decline of the Virginia (and American) Death Penalty","authors":"Brandon L. Garrett","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2674604","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2674604","url":null,"abstract":"The American death penalty is disappearing. Death sentences and executions have reached the lowest levels seen in decades. Public support for the death penalty has declined. More states have abolished the death penalty or imposed de facto moratoria. Even the states formerly most aggressive in pursuit of death sentences have seen death sentences steadily decline. Take Virginia, which has the highest rate of executions of any death penalty state, and which has executed the third highest number of prisoners since the 1970s. How times have changed. There are now two or fewer trials a year in Virginia at which a judge or jury even considers imposing the death penalty. Still more surprising, over one half of those trials in Virginia now result in a life sentence (11 of 21 cases from 2005 to present at which there was a capital sentencing hearing resulted in a life sentence). Why is this happening and in Virginia of all places? In this study of the decline in the Virginia death penalty, I examine every capital trial since 2005, a group of 21 trials, and I compare those to a group of twenty capital trials from 1996 to 2004. The law on the books has not meaningfully changed in ways that would make it harder to obtain death sentences in Virginia. However, in 2004 regional capital defense resource centers were created to handle capital cases. From 1996 to 2004, the crucial sentencing phase at which the judge or jury decided whether to impose the death penalty was typically cursory, averaging less than two days long. In the more recent trials, the average was twice that — four days — and still more striking was the increase in numbers of defense witnesses called, greater use of expert witnesses, and the added complexity of sentencing proceedings. Only seven counties have imposed death sentences in the past decade in Virginia. The changed understanding of effective mitigation, together with improved defense resources, may help explain the decline. I examine additional data from North Carolina and Florida, situating the role of other factors such as national trends in homicide rates, and conclude by describing heightened Eighth Amendment concerns with the scattered state of the American death penalty.","PeriodicalId":47702,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Journal","volume":"51 1","pages":"661"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83246439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Law in the Anthropocene Epoch 人类世时期的法律

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2016-09-02 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2834037

Eric Biber

{"title":"Law in the Anthropocene Epoch","authors":"Eric Biber","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2834037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2834037","url":null,"abstract":"Humans and the effects of their activities now substantially influence the entire planet, including its oceans, its climate, its atmosphere, and its lands. Human influence has become so large that earth scientists have debated whether to identify a new geologic time period, the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene will surely have substantial effects on human societies and economies, and law will be no exception. The Anthropocene is the product of the aggregation of millions and billions of individual human actions, and human effects on global systems are exponentially increasing because of growing technology and population. Humans will inevitably respond to the Anthropocene, if only to adapt to the major changes in oceans, climate, biodiversity, and other critical functions that human society depends upon. Human responses to the Anthropocene will ineluctably lead to greater government involvement in a wide range of human activities, and constant updating of government laws and regulations to respond to new challenges. The result will be pressures on a wide range of legal doctrines in public and private law, including torts, property, constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law. These changes will parallel similar revolutionary legal changes associated with industrialization and the development of a national economy in the United States in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Just as with those legal changes, the legal changes of the Anthropocene will put pressure on normative commitments at the heart of American law, including that classical liberal paradigm that government intrusion into individual action should be the exception, rather than the norm. Managing the impacts of these legal changes will be a key challenge for the legal system in the next century.","PeriodicalId":47702,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Journal","volume":"6 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85389387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 12