71862

Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a constitution "requires that only its great outlines should be marked [and] its important objects designated." Ours is "intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." In recent years, Marshall's great truths have been challenged by proponents of originalism and strict construction. Such legal thinkers as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argue that the Constitution must be construed and applied as it was when the Framers wrote it. In Keeping Faith with the Constitution, three legal authorities make the case for Marshall's vision. They describe their approach as "constitutional fidelity"--not to how the Framers would have applied the Constitution, but to the text and principles of the Constitution itself. The original understanding of the text is one source of interpretation, but not the only one; to preserve the meaning and authority of the document, to keep it vital, applications of the Constitution must be shaped by precedent, historical experience, practical consequence, and societal change. The authors range across the history of constitutional interpretation to show how this approach has been the source of our greatest advances, from Brown v. Board of Education to the New Deal, from the Miranda decision to the expansion of women's rights. They delve into the complexities of voting rights, the malapportionment of legislative districts, speech freedoms, civil liberties and the War on Terror, and the evolution of checks and balances. The Constitution's framers could never have imagined DNA, global warming, or even women's equality. Yet these and many more realities shape our lives and outlook. Our Constitution will remain vital into our changing future, the authors write, if judges remain true to this rich tradition of adaptation and fidelity.

Crimmigration Law is a must-read for law students and practitioners seeking an introduction to the complex legal doctrine and practice challenges at the merger of immigration and criminal law.

With respect to "controversies between two or more states," the U.S. Constitution grants original jurisdiction to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 1789 Congress made exclusive the Court's jurisdiction over interstate disputes. In this book, Joseph F. Zimmerman examines the role of the Supreme Court in settling disputes between states, the criteria developed by the Court to determine whether its original jurisdiction should be invoked, and the function of special masters, who, as adjuncts to the Court, facilitate negotiated settlements or provide the factual information needed by the Court to render sound decisions. Zimmerman analyzes a wide range of specific disputes, from boundary lines to financial matters to water allocation, diversion, and pollution. To alleviate the Court's exceptionally heavy and critically important appellate workload, the author proposes alternative mechanisms for resolving controversies between sister states, including interstate boundary compacts, interstate regulatory compacts, and several congressional initiatives.