Jack Balkin over at Balkinization chimed in yesterday on an ongoing debate among textualists over whether Hillary Clinton can accept the Secretary of State position without violating the Constitution. As Balkin explains, the little-known "Emoluments Clause" of the Constitution, which bars members of Congress from assuming federal office when the salary for that office has been increased during their term in Congress, currently stands in Ms. Clinton’s way:
You are here
by David H. Gans, Director of the Program on Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship, Constitutional Accountability Center
by David Gans, Director of the Constitutional Accountability Center's Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program
by Doug Kendall, President, and David H. Gans, Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program, Constitutional Accountability Center
ACSBlog recently featured an excellent piece by Allison Zieve, a staff attorney at Public Citizen who argued both of the last Supreme Court Term’s product liability preemption cases , Riegel v. Medtronic and Warner-Lambert Co v. Kent. Zieve raises a couple of very important points regarding regulatory agencies’ recent, and harmful support of preemption.
Three Senate races from last Tuesday’s election remain undecided today, with one race (Minnesota’s) down to only a 204-vote margin. In light of the impact each and every vote has in these races, it bears remembering that the principle of “one person, one vote” has only applied in the election of U.S. Senators since the progressive constitutional reforms of the early 20th century.
One thing is abundantly clear after yesterday’s oral argument in the Supreme Court case of Van de Kamp v. Goldstein—the lack of clarity in the Court’s prosecutorial immunity jurisprudence.
Written by Judith E. Schaeffer, Vice President, Constitutional Accountability Center
At yesterday’s oral argument in the case Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court considered a Vermont jury’s determination that pharmaceutical manufacturer Wyeth should be held liable for failure to properly warn of the dangers of intravenous “push” administration of its anti-nausea drug, Phenergan, which had been administered to the plaintiff, Diana Levine, to counteract nausea she was experiencing as a result of a migraine headache. Ms.