{"id":52541,"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\/michael-dorf-archive-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"michael-dorf-archive-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Michael Dorf Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n\n\n\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Legal Commentary – Michael Dorf Archive<\/h1>\n\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
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n

SUPREME COURT 4 – CONGRESS 0: HOW THE COURT HAS REJECTED\n CONGRESS’S VIEW OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN FOUR RECENT CASES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor, and author\n\nMichael Dorf analyzes and disputes the Supreme Court majority’s\n\ninterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (which contains both Due Process\n\nand Equal Protection Clauses) in four recent cases. As Dorf explains,\n\nSection Five of the Amendment provides that “Congress shall have power to\n\nenforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”\n\nNevertheless, Dorf contends, the Court has repeatedly struck down federal\n\nlegislation attempting to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment by, for example,\n\nensuring equality regardless of age or disability. Dorf argues that, given\n\nthe clear language and history of Section 5, the Court should stop\n\nprivileging its own Fourteenth Amendment interpretations over those of\n\nCongress.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Mar. 21, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CLARENCE THOMAS: NOT A SCALIA CLONE
\n THOMAS’S CHALLENGE TO THE REHNQUIST COURT’S VISION OF\n REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Columbia law school Vice Dean and professor, and author\n\nMichael Dorf takes issue with the common view that Supreme Court Justice\n\nClarence Thomas is merely a “Scalia clone.” Dorf notes that on fundamental\n\nissues relating to the nature of representative government, Thomas has\n\nexpressed a unique view that distinguishes him from every other member of\n\nthe Court. Under that view, Dorf explains, state legislatures should be able\n\nto exert substantial control over members of Congress, and members of\n\nCongress should not be able to delegate their responsibility to federal\n\nadministrative agencies.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Mar. 06, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE SUPREME COURT CASE THAT PITS FREE SPEECH AGAINST CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia law school Vice Dean and professor Michael\n\nDorf comments on the Good News Supreme Court case that will be argued next\n\nweek — which raises the question whether public schools must allow\n\nreligious organizations to use its classrooms after school if it allows\n\nsecular organizations to do so. The case, Professor Dorf notes, puts the\n\nCourt in treacherous waters, requiring it to balance two important\n\nprinciples: that the government cannot discriminate on the basis of\n\nviewpoint, and that government cannot endorse religion. Professor Dorf\n\nargues that the Court should steer a middle course, allowing this issue to\n\nbe resolved locally, by schools themselves.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Feb. 21, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE BUSH POLICIES ON ABORTION AND FAITH- BASED SOCIAL SERVICES?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Vice Dean and law professor Michael Dorf\n\nexamines a contradiction between two Bush administration policies. The\n\nadministration, Dorf notes, believes that for the government to give money\n\nto\n\norganizations that, among other things, perform abortions is necessarily the\n\nsame as subsidizing abortion; that is why the President, through an\n\nexecutive\n\norder, has cut off such funding. But the administration also believes that\n\nfor the government to give money to a organization that, among other things,\n\nperforms religious activities is not necessarily the same as subsidizing\n\nreligion (and thus does not violate the Establishment Clause). Can these\n\ntwo\n\npositions be reconciled? Professor Dorf explains the issues they raise, and\n\nwhy these issues troubled Jefferson, too.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Feb. 07, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ASHCROFT, LIEBERMAN, AND THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT DECISIONMAKING<\/a>\n\n
\nFindlaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael\n\nDorf considers what role religious beliefs should have in legislative and\n\nexecutive decisionmaking. What should we make of Senator Lieberman’s\n\npronouncement that there can be no morality without religion? And should we\n\nbe troubled by critics’ suggestion that John Ashcroft’s religious beliefs\n\ncould influence his enforcement priorities as Attorney General? Dorf\n\nanswers\n\nthese questions, and also puts forth a general analysis of when, under our\n\nconstitutional system, religious beliefs may, and may not, motivate\n\ngovernment decisions.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jan. 24, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A REPLY TO JOANNE MARINER’S PIECE ON NGUYEN, AND A CLARIFICATION OF MY EARLIER PIECE<\/a>\n\n
\nColumbia Law School Vice Dean and Professor Michael C. Dorf, a FindLaw\ncolumnist, continues the discussion in Writ of the Supreme Court’s Nguyen\ncase. Nguyen raises the question of whether a federal statute involving\nthe transmission of citizenship to children born to American citizens abroad,\nwhich treats American mothers differently from American fathers, illegally\ndiscriminates on the basis of sex. In this reply, Professor Dorf clarifies\nhis earlier analysis of Nguyen, and responds to Joanne Mariner’s points\nconcerning foreign countries’ law on transmission of citizenship, and the\nrelevance of that law to Nguyen.\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Jan. 12, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n

SEX DISCRIMINATION AT OUR BORDERS? THE COURT’S NGUYEN CASE – PART I<\/a>\n\n
\nIn Part One of a two-part series on the Supreme Court’s Nguyen case, both\nparts of which appear simulataneously in Writ, Findlaw columnist and\nColumbia\nVice Dean and law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses Nguyen’s equal\nprotection issue. As Professor Dorf explains, Nguyen raises the question\nwhether the citizenship of children born out of wedlock in foreign countries\nto a U.S. citizen and a foreign national may constitutionally be determined\nin part by the gender of their U.S. citizen parent.\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jan. 10, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

SEX DISCRIMINATION AT OUR BORDERS? THE COURT’S NGUYEN CASE – PART II<\/a>\n\n
\nIn Part Two of a two-part series on the Supreme Court’s Nguyen case, both\nparts of which appear simulataneously in Writ, Findlaw columnist and\nColumbia\nVice Dean and law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses Nguyen’s plenary power\nissue. Professor Dorf questions both the logic and the historical pedigree\nof the oft-cited legal proposition that Congress has plenary power —\nunconstrained even by the Bill of Rights — over immigration and\nnaturalization issues.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jan. 10, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BUSH V. GORE DOES NOT UNDERMINE, BUT PROVES, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW AND POLITICS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Columbia Vice Dean, law professor, and author Michael\n\nDorf considers the larger implications of the claim that the Supreme\n\nCourt’s\n\nrecent Gore v. Bush decision, which convinced Vice President Gore to\n\nconcede,\n\nwas partisan. If we believe this claim, should we also believe that any\n\ndistinction between law and politics is illusory? On the contrary,\n\nProfessor\n\nDorf argues, the recent decision only underlines this important distinction.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Dec. 27, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE SUPREME COURT’S BAIT AND SWITCH<\/a>\n\n
\nColumbia Law School Vice-Dean and professor Michael C. Dorf, a FindLaw\nColumnist,\nexplains why the Supreme Court’s two Gore v. Bush decisions were, in his\nview, themselves the reason that completing a Florida statewide recount by\nDecember 12 was rendered impossible.\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Dec. 15, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 5<\/a> | Page 4<\/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