Copyright (c) 2009 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck Recent documents in Randy Beck en-us Sun, 31 May 2009 10:37:49 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/7 http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/7 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:53 PDT The 2004 presidential election has generated a wide-ranging discussion of the role of religion in public life. Well before the election, Jason Carter, grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, anticipated the difficulties the political left would experience in attracting the votes of theologically conservative Christians. In a paper initially drafted for a Spring 2004 law school seminar, Mr. Carter called for a genuine dialogue about political implications of the Christian faith, designed to overcome the country's unhealthy polarization between a religious right and a secular left. In light of the election results, Prof. Randy Beck suggested that Mr. Carter's seminar paper form the basis for this written dialogue, which explores political implications of Christian faith, including the extent to which conservative theology might be consistent with liberal politics. Jason Carter Constitutional Law Religion Politics http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/6 http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/6 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:52 PDT Several months before the 2004 presidential election, a seminar at the University of Georgia School of Law explored views of law and legal institutions reflected in various Christian theological traditions. The class included an unusually gifted group of students from a variety of theological and political backgrounds. One student brought a particularly unique and relevant set of experiences to the course. Jason Carter grew up as the grandson of Jimmy Carter, a former Democratic President who has often discussed the political implications of his Christian faith. Jason also observed first hand the interaction of Christian faith and political activity as Peace Corps volunteer in post-Apartheid South Africa. Believing that others could benefit from the discussion initiated in the seminar, I suggested that Jason's seminar paper form the basis for this published dialogue on political implications of Christian faith. J. Randy Beck Law and Religion http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/5 http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/5 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:52 PDT Book review of PRESIDENTIAL DEFIANCE OF "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" LAWS: REVIVING THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE, by Christopher N. May (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998). J. Randy Beck Constitutional Law http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/3 http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/3 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:51 PDT The Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey plurality acknowledged an obligation to "justify the lines we draw." The corollary would seem to be an obligation to eschew lines that defy principled justification. In the decades since Roe v. Wade, the Court has offered no adequate rationale for the viability standard, notwithstanding persistent judicial and academic critiques. Exacerbating this country's divisions over abortion and placing us out of step with the world community, the viability rule seems a strong candidate for abandonment as the Court continues to rethink its abortion jurisprudence in the aftermath of Casey. J. Randy Beck Constitutional Law Women http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/4 http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/4 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:51 PDT Congress amended the False Claims Act in 1986 to encourage qui tam enforcement of the statute, which penalizes submission of false claims to the federal government. A qui tam statute authorizes a private citizen "informer" to file suit on behalf of the government for collection of a statutory forfeiture. A successful informer receives a share of the recovery. Qui tam enforcement came from England, where it served for centuries as the principal means of enforcing a wide range of statutes. England moved away from qui tam enforcement in the 1880s and abolished it altogether in 1951. In this Article, Professor Beck considers the recurring problems that beset English qui tam enforcement, the widespread contempt for informers, and the reasons for Parliament's eventual eradication of such legislation. He concludes that qui tam statutes contain an inherent conflict of interest because they afford informers a pecuniary interest that often conflicts with public interests at stake in the litigation. Professor Beck argues that this conflict explains the problems with English qui tam statutes and analogous problems under the False Claims Act. He recommends modifying the Act to preserve the benefits of qui tam enforcement while increasing the role of disinterested public prosecutors in enforcement. J. Randy Beck Legal History Public Law and Legal Theory http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/2 http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/2 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:43:50 PDT Section I of this article seeks to correct a common scholarly misconception regarding the sort of pretext review envisioned by McCulloch v. Maryland. All students of McCulloch understand the decision to call for judicial review of the means-end relationship underlying a federal statute. But McCulloch also indicated that the Court would strike down legislation "should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government."Various constitutional scholars construe this pretext passage to contemplate a second inquiry--separate from the Court's scrutiny of means-end relationships--into whether the legislative motive behind a statute satisfies constitutional standards. Drawing upon Chief Justice Marshall's anonymous essays explaining McCulloch, this article rejects that reading of the pretext passage.Section II argues that the grounds invoked for invalidating legislation in the recent Fourteenth Amendment cases constitute forms of means-end pretext review consistent with this corrected reading of McCulloch. Section III relates the Fourteenth Amendment case law to the Supreme Court's recent commerce power decision in Lopez and Morrison. J. Randy Beck Constitutional Law http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/1 http://works.bepress.com/randy_beck/1 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:14:09 PDT Gonzales v. Carhart upheld a federal ban on intact D&E abortions. The dissenters in Gonzales accused the majority of ignoring the rule that a state may only prohibit abortion of a viable fetus, one capable of life outside the womb. The continuing discord over the viability rule highlights an issue that remains unsettled 34 years after Roe: Why may a state protect the life of a fetus after it reaches viability, but not before? Professor John Hart Ely long ago noted Roe's failure to justify the viability rule, observing that "the Court's defense seems to mistake a definition for a syllogism."This article contends that the Supreme Court has still never offered an adequate constitutional rationale for the viability rule, even though, under the reasoning of Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa., a principled justification is a necessary foundation for judicial legitimacy. The Gonzales decision makes such a principled constitutional justification for the viability rule even harder to envision. Randy Beck Constitutional Law