scholarly journals Smokey and the Bandit in Cyberspace: The Dormant Commerce Clause, the Twenty-first Amendment, and State Regulation of Internet Alcohol Sales

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brannon P. Denning
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
Alcohol Sales

An Inconsistent Jurisprudence: The Doctrinal Spectrum

2020 ◽  
pp. 93-136
Author(s):  
Edward A. Jr. Purcell
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence ◽  
The U.S

This chapter explores Justice Antonin Scalia’s constitutional jurisprudence across the broad range of issues he addressed. The chapter shows that he contradicted his originalist jurisprudence in interpreting the First Amendment (both its free speech and religion clauses) as well as the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Amendments, and that he did the same in construing a variety of other constitutional doctrines including those involving standing, the treaty power, affirmative action, the Commerce Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s own appellate jurisdiction. The chapter argues that he frequently twisted, ignored, and abandoned his jurisprudential principles and methodologies he proclaimed and that the principal consistency his decisions and opinions reveal was his commitment to his own ideological goals and values.

A Matter of Context: Casey and the Constitutionality of Compelled Physician Speech

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott W. Gaylord
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Strict Scrutiny ◽  
Legitimate Interest ◽  
Single Standard ◽  
The Government

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Given the myriad ways in which freedom of speech can be implicated, the United States Supreme Court has not adopted a single standard for reviewing First Amendment speech claims. With respect to compelled speech, the Court has instructed that “context” is dispositive. When the government attempts to “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” the Court applies strict scrutiny. When, however, “the State has a significant role to play in regulating” a particular context, government-compelled disclosures may be subject to a lower standard of review: “When a state regulation implicates First Amendment rights, the court must balance those interests against the State’s legitimate interest in regulating the activity in question.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document