VOLUME 87, ISSUE 7  |  June 2009

 

Symposium: What, If Anything, Do We Know About Constitutional Design?

I. Theories of Constitutional Design

Profs. William N. Eskridge, Jr. & John Ferejohn

87 Texas L. Rev. 1273 (2009)
Prof. Walter F. Murphy

87 Texas L. Rev. 1303 (2009)
Prof. Ran Hirschl

87 Texas L. Rev. 1339 (2009)

II. Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and the Role of Opposition Parties

Prof. José Antonio Cheibub

87 Texas L. Rev. 1375 (2009)
Prof. David Fontana

87 Texas L. Rev. 1409 (2009)

III. Designing a Judiciary

Profs. Tom Ginsburg & Zachary Elkins

87 Texas L. Rev. 1431 (2009)
Prof. Miguel Schor

87 Texas L. Rev. 1463 (2009)

IV. Constitutional Change

Prof. Mark Tushnet

87 Texas L. Rev. 1499 (2009)
Profs. Bruce E. Cain & Roger G. Noll

87 Texas L. Rev. 1517 (2009)

V. Lessons of Experience in the Enterprise of Constitutional Design

Prof. David S. Law

87 Texas L. Rev. 1545 (2009)
Prof. Peter C. Ordeshook

87 Texas L. Rev. 1595 (2009)
Feisal Amin Rasoul al-Istrabadi

87 Texas L. Rev. 1627 (2009)
Prof. David C. Williams

87 Texas L. Rev. 1657 (2009)

An Online Companion to Texas Law Review
 

Texas Law Review

Sarah E. Agudo

Wed, 2009-10-14

In this piece, Sarah Agudo responds to Professor Wildenthal's criticism of a prior Texas Law Review article authored by her and Professor Steven G. Calabresi discussing, among more than 100 other individual rights, grand jury rights.  Agudo responds to several of Professor Wildenthal's critiques of her methodology, while noting that some of his suggestions provide useful areas in which to expand the research on the state constitutional history of grand juries in future publications.

Guha Krishnamurthi, Jon Reidy, Michael J. Stephan, and Shane Pennington

Tue, 2009-10-13

In this Response Note to Jeremy Waldron's The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review, the Authors defend judicial majoritarianism, which is the use of majority decisionmaking among judicial officers who possess the power of judicial review. In defending judicial majoritrianism, the Authors contend that Professor Waldron's arguments against majoritarian decisionmaking merely reassert traditional arguments against judicial review rather than adding any new ideas to the debate.

Prof. Mae C. Quinn

Tue, 2009-10-13

In this response piece, Professor Mae C. Quinn examines Brian Tamanaha's efforts to recast the "who" and "what" of the Legal Realism movement in his recent article.  Professor Quinn applauds Professor Tamanaha's attempt to rescue from obscurity some of Legal Realism's forgotten pioneers.  But as Professor Tamanaha, like others examining the Realist movement, neglected to discuss the contribution of women to the movement, Professor Quinn seeks to recover this history.  Specifically, she examines the story of Judge Anna Moscowitz Kross, whose legal career embodied the tenants of Realism that Professor Tamanaha acknowledged as most significant.

Joshua A. Douglas

Sun, 2009-10-11

In this Essay, Douglas tells us that "[t]he most surprising action from the Supreme Court’s latest term may be what it did not do:  strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act . . . as unconstitutional." Douglas explores the Court's recent decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (NAMUDNO), in which the Justices managed to avoid invalidating Congress's reauthorization of the "preclearance" provision of the Voting Rights Act (which requires preapproval for changes to voting procedures in covered jurisdictions). This Essay explores the reasons behind the Court's 8–1 opinion, which resolved the issue on narrow statutory grounds, and what the comments in dicta by various Justices may mean for future election law cases.

Prof. Deborah Tuerkheimer

Thu, 2009-06-25

In this comment, Professor Tuerkheimer advances the notion of “control killings,” or viewing domestic violence homicide as the final act in a pattern of various forms of abusive conduct.

Prof. Myrna S. Raeder

Thu, 2009-06-25

In this comment, Professor Raeder examines the major claims in Professor Lininger’s article, agreeing with some but not all of his suggestions.