First Amendment cases and federal power

[Barksdale, Yvette]

Oh yes - absolutely 

 

 I definitely agree here. But, they  (lawyers) should try to analyze
every issue, even if only to determine that it is a no go.  Of course,
time constraints would factor in here as well. 

 

But clearly, brief writing is a strategic function - and how you frame
your issues is part of you prepare your case. No disagreement there. 

 

yb

 

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

 

Professor Yvette M. Barksdale

The John Marshall Law School

315 S. Plymouth Ct. 

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 427-2737 (phone)

(312) 427-9974 (fax)

 

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:DLaycock at law.utexas.edu] 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:13 PM
To: Barksdale, Yvette
Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: First Amendment cases and federal power

 

Lawyers don't have to address every issue either, and good ones don't
and understand that they can't.  You only have 50 undersized pages in a
Supreme Court brief, and in a case of any complexity, you have to make
every word count.  Pages spent addressing an issue that is highly likely
to be resolved against you, or otherwise not to contribute to your
ultimate success, are generally pages wasted -- a gift to your opponent.


 

Douglas Laycock

University of Texas Law School

727 E. Dean Keeton St.

Austin, TX  78705

512-232-1341

512-471-6988 (fax)

 

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Barksdale, Yvette
Sent: Thu 4/14/2005 9:32 PM
To: RJLipkin at aol.com; VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: First Amendment cases and federal power

Hi Bobby, 

 

If this is a keeping faith with students  concern - I think there is a
good  answer as to why lawyers should always raise legislative authority
issues, even though courts might not.  Lawyers are responsible for
framing the questions that Courts eventually will decide, and lawyers
are responsible to their clients for making sure that they don't miss
issues that would be relevant to  resolving the dispute. It is always
easy to assume that Congress has authority and thus to "miss the issue"
when it might be lurking in the background. Lawyers, if they are good
ones, won't fall into this easy trap - and will always identify the
question of federal legislative authority, and ask whether it is
present. If the answer is yes, great. If no, or if there is a credible
argument that the answer no, they will have earned their fee. 

 

However, judges, whose responsibility is to decide cases, don't have to
address every issue, unless it is dispositive of their case. (see Eugene
reasons, etc). Once the student gets to be a judge, they will have the
same luxury. But not until then.

 

yb

 

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

 

Professor Yvette M. Barksdale

The John Marshall Law School

315 S. Plymouth Ct. 

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 427-2737 (phone)

(312) 427-9974 (fax)

 

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of RJLipkin at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:46 AM
To: VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: First Amendment cases and federal power

 

        If the authorization problem is obvious in most First Amendment
cases, it is difficult to see how Justices are acting out "of a sense
that they (usually) shouldn't decide controversial constitutional
questions unless they have to." Obviousness and controversy make
incompatible bedfellows. Time pressure certainly doesn't explain why a
perfunctory paragraph referring to the Commerce Clause, etc., is absent
in First Amendment cases. Finally, if we take seriously the idea that
the Constitution creates a limited federal government of enumerated
powers, and certainly Chief Justice Rehnquist among others are committed
to this idea, then analytic soundness should prompt (if not require)
them to address, albeit briefly, the authorization problem, whether
raised by the parties or not.

 

Bobby

 

 

 

 

Bobby

 

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050415/0d8c531b/attachment.htm