{"id":50226,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/akhil-amar-and-vikram-amar-archive-1.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"akhil-amar-and-vikram-amar-archive-1","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/akhil-amar-and-vikram-amar-archive-1.html","title":{"rendered":"Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n
\n

Legal Commentary: Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar Archive Archive<\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n

DRUG TESTING, INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT:
THE SUPREME COURT’S UPCOMING CHOICE BETWEEN TWO COMPETING APPROACHES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss an important Fourth Amendment case in which the Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument. The case involves a school board policy under which every student at a high school who participates in extracurricular activities must undergo a drug test. The Amars discuss both the specifics of the case and their more general views on the Fourth Amendment test the Court should apply in such a case.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Mar. 08, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TAKING THE FIFTH AND MIS-TAKING IT:
A DIALOGUE ON COMPELLED SELF-INCRIMINATION<\/a>\n\n
\nThe Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that “No person . . . shall be \n\ncompelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” In a \n\nthought-provoking dialogue, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and \n\n“brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss what the \n\nAmendment means. For instance, when someone is compelled to testify before \n\nCongress, does the Amendment provide narrow “testimonial” immunity, \n\npreventing only the introduction of the testimony itself in a criminal trial? \n\n Or does it also confer broad “use-fruits” immunity, which also would exclude \n\nfrom a criminal trial all leads and fruits generated by that testimony?
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Feb. 22, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WE LIKE MIKE:
AN OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY IN SUPPORT OF JUDICIAL NOMINEE MICHAEL MCCONNELL<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in \nlaw” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar, in an impassioned open letter to \nSenator Leahy, make the case for why they believe liberals and conservatives \nalike should support the nomination of Professor Michael McConnell to the \nTenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Amars contend that McConnell is, in many \nways, not just a good nominee but an ideal one, and reply to critics who have \nfaulted him for his views on the Constitution’s religion clauses by arguing \nthat his views are actually quite moderate.
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Feb. 08, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

GROUND RULES FOR SENATORS FACING JUDICIAL NOMINEES:
\nTHE QUESTIONS SENATORS SHOULD ASK, AND DECLINE TO ASK, WHEN EVALUATING POTENTIAL JUDGES AND JUSTICES<\/a>\n\n
\nIn Part Two of a two-part series on appointments and confirmations, FindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss what types of questions Senators might want to ask judicial nominees should and should not be off limits. The Amars’ analysis is carefully tailored to take into account the position for which the nominee has been nominated, as well as his or her prior experience. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jan. 25, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE GROUND RULES OF THE APPOINTMENTS GAME:
\n UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURE OF NOMINATIONS AND \n CONFIRMATIONS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss the institutional powers and constraints, both Constitutional and practical, that govern nominations and confirmations for positions in the executive and the judiciary. The Amars have formulated six basic rules that help explain the power dynamic between the President and the Senate; they are especially timely now, when President Bush has recently made use of his recess appointment power and when many positions remain unstaffed. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jan. 11, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HOW TO ACHIEVE DIRECT NATIONAL ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT \nWITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION:
PART THREE OF A \nTHREE- PART SERIES ON THE 2000 ELECTION AND THE \nELECTORAL COLLEGE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar present two ingenious ways in which, without any Constitutional amendment, the nation could move to what would, in effect, be a system of direct national election of the President, thereby bypassing the electoral college system and ensuring that the winner of the popular vote would win the election. The system could also ensure uniform national voting standards in Presidential elections — solving the equal protection issues that plagued the 2000 Florida election. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Dec. 28, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A CRITIQUE OF THE TOP TEN MODERN ARGUMENTS FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE:
PART TWO OF A THREE-PART SERIES ON 2000 ELECTION AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar take aim at the top ten modern arguments for the electoral college. The Amars contend that most arguments against direct Presidential elections would, if accepted, destroy our longstanding tradition of direct gubernatorial elections, too. Others simply do not outweigh the fundamental one person, one vote principle. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Dec. 14, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HISTORY, SLAVERY, SEXISM, THE SOUTH, AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE:
PART ONE OF A THREE-PART SERIES ON THE 2000 ELECTION AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar explain the deep flaws in traditional explanations for why we have the electoral college, rather than a simpler direct election system, in Presidential elections. The Amars contend the electoral college is not really about giving smaller states a bigger voice; instead, the system has tainted origins relating to north\/south tensions, slavery, and even the denial of women’s suffrage. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Nov. 30, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE NEW REGULATION ALLOWING FEDERAL \n AGENTS TO MONITOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONVERSATIONS:
\n WHY IT THREATENS FOURTH AMENDMENT VALUES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists and law professors Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar \nweigh in on the new Department of Justice regulation relating to \nattorney-client communications. The regulation would allow federal agents to \nmonitor traditionally confidential meetings between inmates (including \ndetainees and those held as witnesses) and their attorneys, whenever Attorney \nGeneral Ashcroft determines that “reasonable suspicion exists to believe that \nan inmate may use the communications with attorneys . . . to facilitate acts \nof terrorism.”
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Nov. 16, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

GUNS AND THE CONSTITUTION:
TELLING THE RIGHT SECOND AMENDMENT STORY<\/a>\n \n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in \nlaw” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss the Fifth Circuit’s recent \ndecision recognizing an individual Second Amendment right to bear arms. The \nAmars contend that whether or not one agrees with the court’s conclusion, the \nstory it told to get there was seriously flawed. \n<\/span>
\nFriday, Nov. 02, 2001<\/span>
\n<\/p>

\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>

\n
—<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\u00a0Columns by Akhil Amar:<\/span>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n

ACT LOCALLY, THINK GLOBALLY, PART ONE:
WHY TIMOTHY MCVEIGH’S TRIAL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL<\/a>\n
\nIn Part One of a two part series on constitutional issues raised by the trial \nof Timothy McVeigh, FindLaw columnist and Yale law professor Akhil Reed \nAmar contends that moving McVeigh’s trial from Oklahoma to Colorado was \nclearly unconstitutional.
<\/span>\nFriday, Jul. 13, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

ACT LOCALLY, THINK GLOBALLY, PART TWO:
WHY EVOLVING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS MAY HAVE RENDERED THE DEATH PENALTY UNCONSTITUTIONAL<\/a>\n
\nIn Part Two of a two-part series on constitutional issues raised by the trial \nof Timothy McVeigh, Yale law professor, author, and FindLaw columnist \nAkhil Reed Amar discusses how international views on the death penalty may be \nrelevant to interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. An emerging trend among \nthe fifty states on death penalty issues can inform our reading of the words \n“cruel” and “unusual”; Amar asks whether an international trend, like the \nEU’s anti-death-penalty stance, can do the same.
<\/span>\nWednesday, Aug. 8, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

POSTSCRIPT: DIALLO AND THE BOSTON MASSACRE<\/a>\n
\n
<\/span>\nMonday, May 1, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n