Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The Unconstitutionality of the Filibuster

Abstract: This Article, written for the Connecticut Law Review's 2010 "Is Our Constitutional Order Broken?" symposium, argues that the filibuster, as currently practiced, is unconstitutional. After a brief introduction in Part I, Part II describes the current operation of the filibuster. Although the filibuster is often discussed in terms of "unlimited debate," this Part argues that its current operation is best understood in terms of a sixty-vote requirement to pass most bills and other measures through the Senate. Part III presents a structural argument that this supermajority requirement for most Senate business is unconstitutional. This Part argues that the words "passed" in Article I’s description of the legislative process, "determine" in the Rules of Proceedings Clause, and "consent" in the Appointments Clause must be understood to contain an implicit premise that a determined and focused legislative majority must be able to get its way in a reasonable amount of time. Or, to put it differently, the Constitution cannot countenance permanent minority obstruction in a house of Congress. Part IV responds to the most prominent counterarguments. First, it rejects the counterargument from plenary cameral rule-making authority, arguing that rules made pursuant to this authority still cannot run afoul of the structural principle described in Part III. Second, it rejects the counterargument based on historical pedigree. Surveying the history of the House of Commons, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, it finds no longstanding tradition in Anglo-American legislatures of indefinite minority obstruction. And third, it rejects the counterargument that legislative entrenchment is unproblematic. Finally, Part V suggests choreography for eliminating the filibuster. It begins by noting that this is not a matter for Article III courts; the arguments here are - and must be - addressed to constitutionally conscientious Senators. It then suggests that the filibuster need not be eliminated at the beginning of a new Congress; if the filibuster is unconstitutional, then the presiding officer may so rule at any time, and the Senate may uphold that ruling by simple majority. Finally, it notes that the filibuster need not be replaced with a simple majority cloture rule and suggests potential alternatives.

Gender & Trauma — Somatic Interventions for Girls in Juvenile Justice: Implications for Policy and Practice

Abstract: This report maps the ways in which trauma-informed, gender-responsive, and culturally competent yoga and mindfulness programs can address the short- and long-term impacts of trauma on girls in the juvenile justice system. The first of its kind, this report is based on two pilot programs conducted by the Center on Poverty and Inequality in residential programs for girls in Connecticut and Pennsylvania, as well as an extensive literature review and comprehensive interviews with experts in trauma-informed yoga programs across the country. Drawing from these resources, it seeks to inform policymakers, judges, juvenile justice facility administrators and staff, and others working with system-involved girls about the importance of viewing girls’ trauma through a gendered and an intersectional lens. In addition, this report introduces trauma-informed, gender-responsive yoga as a somatic intervention that can significantly support the diverse mental and physical health needs of system-involved girls. Finally, it highlights key policy considerations and recommendations for those working with girls in the juvenile justice system to develop and scale-up somatic interventions.

Multiplicity in Federalism and the Separation of Powers

Abstract: Alison LaCroix’s new book, “The Ideological Origins of American Federalism,” offers an insightful and compelling prehistory of federalism in the American Constitution. LaCroix demonstrates and traces the emergence of an ideology of federalism, an ideology centered around the concept of legitimate multiplicity in governmental authority, beginning with the colonial reaction to the Stamp Act in 1765. However, as LaCroix’s narrative progresses, her institutional focus inexplicably narrows. Beginning with the Constitutional Convention and continuing through the 1789 and 1801 Judiciary Acts, LaCroix argues that federalism took a turn toward judicial supremacy. In short, she argues that federalism discourse in the new republic was structured around courts and jurisdiction, rather than legislatures and sovereignty. This Review highlights a number of factors that LaCroix’s analysis overlooks - including structural constitutional features like the composition of the Senate and the federal military power, as well as historical controversies like the debate over the Bank of the United States and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions - to suggest that the focus on judicial power is more an artifact of LaCroix’s choice of evidence than an accurate reflection of the state of federalism discourse. Instead, this Review argues that the Constitution uses separation-of-powers multiplicity in the service of federalism multiplicity. This Review then expands on LaCroix’s idea of multiplicity, bringing it to the separation-of-powers context. The final section of the Review begins to develop a theory of multiplicity in the separation-of-powers, focusing on the ways in which constitutional politics affects not only the resolution of substantive issues, but also the institutional site at which those issues are resolved.

Euro Zone Crisis Management and the New Social Europe

Abstract: This article analyzes the changes in European governance since the beginning of the euro crisis in relation to the project of constructing Social Europe. The article tracks the incorporation of a structural reform agenda originally designed as bailout conditionality for countries on the verge of default into EU economic governance as a strategy for growth. Beyond the contestable grounds of this reform agenda, its adoption by the EU in the mode of crisis management poses serious questions of legitimacy. The new enhanced economic coordination process includes obligatory guidelines in domains under the legislative competence of Member States, such as labor regulation and taxation, under the guise of a technocratic imperative. The article also shows that despite the intensely neoliberal character of the proposed structural reforms, the Commission has foregrounded the protection of Europe’s welfare regimes as a key reason for reform. In reality, such reforms would dramatically alter welfare regimes, emptying out traditional welfarist goals such as the decommodification of labor without appropriate political processes. This article argues that these developments are likely to challenge the already weakened legitimacy of the European Union.