{"id":50227,"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-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"akhil-amar-and-vikram-amar-archive-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/akhil-amar-and-vikram-amar-archive-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

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

CONSTITUTIONAL VICES:
SOME GAPS IN THE SYSTEM OF PRESIDENTIAL \n\n SUCCESSION AND TRANSFER OF EXECUTIVE POWER<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in \n\nlaw” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss the ways, over our \n\nhistory, the Constitution has addressed (and, at times, failed to address) \n\nissues relating to Presidential succession. What happens, for instance, if \n\nthe President and Vice President are both arguably incapacitated at the same \n\ntime? As the Amars explain, there is still no good answer to that question.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jul. 26, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EIGHTH AMENDMENT MATHEMATICS (PART TWO):
HOW THE ATKINS JUSTICES DIVIDED WHILE SUMMING<\/a>\n\n
\nIn Part Two of a two-part series, FindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss additional mathematical questions raised by the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia. In Atkins, the Court held that mentally retarded convicts could not constitutionally be executed. In so holding, the Court relied on an increasing national consensus that such executions are cruel and unusual. But how is such a consensus calculated? The Amars weigh in on wrong, and right, way to figure out whether such a consensus exists.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jul. 12, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EIGHTH AMENDMENT MATHEMATICS (PART ONE):
HOW THE ATKINS JUSTICES DIVIDED WHEN SUMMING<\/a>\n\n
\nIn Part One of a two part series, FindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings \n\nlaw professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar \n\ndiscuss an important constitutional question: What statistics should count \n\nin the determination of whether there is an evolving national consensus that \n\na particular kind of punishment violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition \n\non “cruel and unusual punishments”? The Amars evaluate the view that Justice \n\nStevens recnently outlined in the Atkins decision banning execution of the \n\nmentally retarded, and the contrary view that Justice Scalia presented in \n\ndissent in the same case.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jun. 28, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“I ALWAYS FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY’S WATCHING ME”:
A FOURTH AMENDMENT ANALYSIS OF THE FBI’S NEW \n\n SURVEILLANCE POLICY<\/a>\n\n
\nFindlaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in \n\nlaw” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar weigh in on an important question: \n\nDoes Attorney General Ashcroft’s new FBI surveillance regulation violate the \n\nFourth Amendment? In the course of explaining why it might or might not, the \n\nAmars isolate what they contend are a number of misconceptions that have \n\nhampered the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Amendment.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jun. 14, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DOES THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO WORK WITH A DISABLED EMPLOYEE TO FIND AN ACCOMMODATION?:
THE LINGERING QUESTION OF THE “INTERACTIVE PROCESS” REQUIREMENT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and U.C. Hastings law professor Vikram David Amar, and FindLaw \n\nguest columnist and attorney Dipanwita Deb Amar, take on two important \n\nunresolved legal questions: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and its \n\naccompanying EEOC regulations, does an employer have the obligation to work \n\nwith a disabled employee to find a “reasonable accommodation” — that is, a \n\nway the employee can still do his or her job despite a disability? If so, \n\nhow should that obligation be enforced, if at all?\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, May. 31, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A DIALOGUE ON WHY MANDATORY DNA TESTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM MANDATORY DRUG TESTS FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT PURPOSES <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in \n\nlaw” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar engage in a dialogue about Akhil’s \n\nrecent proposal that every American should be required to undergo a DNA test \n\nso that a national DNA database can be created — in part, to ensure that \n\ninnocent people are not wrongly convicted for crimes they did not commit. In \n\nthe dialogue, Vik raises possible objections to the proposal, and tests \n\nAkhil’s view on the Fourth Amendment status of the database against Akhil’s \n\nview on the Fourth Amendment status of high school drug testing.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, May. 17, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE FATAL FLAW IN FRANCE’S — AND AMERICA’S –VOTING \n\nSYSTEM, AND HOW AN “INSTANT RUNOFF” SYSTEM MIGHT REMEDY IT <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and UC Hastings law professors, and “brothers in \n\nlaw” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar offer a way to prevent the \n\nphenomenon that has caused widespread protest in France — the presence of \n\nLePen, rather than the more popular Jospin, in the runoff against Chirac for \n\nthe Presidency — from recurring, either there or in any U.S. federal or \n\nstate election. The Amars explain how a Single Transferable Voting, or \n\n“instant runoff,” system works, and how it would have affected situations \n\nranging from the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, to the historic \n\nfour-way Presidential race of 1860.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, May. 03, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DOES THE SUPREME COURT HATE THE NINTH CIRCUIT?:
A DIALOGUE ON WHY THAT APPEALS COURT FARES SO POORLY<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and UC Hastings law professors, and “brothers in \n\nlaw” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar employ statistical evidence and \n\nargumentation to take on a question that has nagged at Supreme Court lawyers \n\nfor years: What accounts for the stunning frequency with which the Supreme \n\nCourt reverses the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the \n\nNinth Circuit — sometimes 9-0, and often with only a few dissenting votes?\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Apr. 19, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BREAKING CONSTITUTIONAL FAITH:
PRESIDENT BUSH AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar contend that Presidents have a duty to abide by their own interpretations of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Amars take issue with President Bush’s recent decision to sign the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill despite having expressed strong qualms that it violates the First Amendment.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Apr. 05, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE SENATE WINS AN EARLY ROUND IN THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS TOURNAMENT – THE PICKERING CASE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss claims by President Bush and other Republicans that Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee engaged in foul play when they decided to block Charles Pickering’s nomination, declining to send it to the full Senate. Does the Constitution requite full Senate consideration of Presidential judicial nominees? The Amars explain the answer.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Mar. 22, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\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<\/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