Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W172966772> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 70 of
70
with 100 items per page.
- W172966772 abstract "In reviewing constitutionality of federal legislation, United States Supreme Court recently has scrutinized underlying record. Since 1995, United States Supreme Court has invalidated six federal statutes based at least in part on its scrutiny of underlying legislative materials. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett represented full emergence of this rigorous judicial scrutiny, which we term record In Garrett, Court broke with seventy years of precedent by striking down legislation based solely on inadequacy of record developed by Congress. Before Garrett, some commentators had noted and even endorsed Court's new approach to judicial review of legislation. These scholars, however, had failed to explore flaw at center of legislative record review. As we demonstrate, very concept of the legislative as employed by Court, is a fiction. The nature of legislative process belies existence of comprehensive explanatory materials. The notion of a legislative record, as used by Court, constitutes an inappropriate importation from different institutional settings of expectation that a written record will justify a legal judgment. With reference to insights of administrative law and its agency record review jurisprudence, we argue that reliance on concept of a legislative record is unworkable and illegitimate. In defiance of separation of powers principles, legislative record review actually embodies more rigorous judicial scrutiny than commonly employed even in hard look review of administrative action. The Court's new parsing of legislative statements and submissions is also in substantial tension with typical textualist rejection of recourse to legislative history. Having identified flaws at heart of legislative record review, Article then traces its origins to judicial suspicion of congressional motives. The adoption of this mode of review reveals a newly ascendant judicial distrust of Congress. While courts certainly have a role in reviewing basis of congressional action, we argue that this kind of review of ostensible factual predicates constitutes an unnecessary and ill-defined intrusion into constitutionally conferred powers of Congress. In conclusion, we propose various means by which Congress and litigants might create and defend legislation so as to survive rigors of legislative record review." @default.
- W172966772 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W172966772 creator A5009332734 @default.
- W172966772 creator A5013964075 @default.
- W172966772 date "2001-01-01" @default.
- W172966772 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
- W172966772 title "Legislative Record Review" @default.
- W172966772 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.267535" @default.
- W172966772 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
- W172966772 type Work @default.
- W172966772 sameAs 172966772 @default.
- W172966772 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W172966772 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W172966772 hasAuthorship W172966772A5009332734 @default.
- W172966772 hasAuthorship W172966772A5013964075 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C108170787 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C2776512386 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C48764862 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
- W172966772 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C108170787 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C144024400 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C17319257 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C17744445 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C199539241 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C2776050585 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C2776154427 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C2776512386 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C2777351106 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C2778272461 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C36289849 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C48764862 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C71043370 @default.
- W172966772 hasConceptScore W172966772C83009810 @default.
- W172966772 hasLocation W1729667721 @default.
- W172966772 hasOpenAccess W172966772 @default.
- W172966772 hasPrimaryLocation W1729667721 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W10086508 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W1490799338 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W1504671382 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W1572248166 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W1587331115 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W1598842962 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W2112544227 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W2118751737 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W2226185236 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W2257129190 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W2480138015 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W2944988419 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W304644508 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W3122325088 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W3123314660 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W3124601113 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W3124736179 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W3125453204 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W3170265026 @default.
- W172966772 hasRelatedWork W31781273 @default.
- W172966772 isParatext "false" @default.
- W172966772 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W172966772 magId "172966772" @default.
- W172966772 workType "article" @default.