Sager_Constitutional_Law_I

Sager_Constitutional_Law_I - 1 Prof. Sager Fall 2000...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Prof. Sager Fall 2000 Constitutional Law Outline I. INTRODUCTION A. Kimel and Morrison 1. Lessons from Kimel and Morrison . Evolution of doctrine: Five years ago, it would have been extremely difficult to anticipate Kimel and Morrison . It was thought that Congress had great power under the commerce clause and section 5 of the 14 th Amendment. Problems of bringing meaning to constitutional text. One example is the Eleventh Amendment. a. Eleventh Amendment. (1)Recent developments in 11 th Amendment jurisprudence. Seminole Tribe held that Congress has the power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of states, but only when it acts under the civil rights enforcement provisions (i.e. §5 of the 14 th Amendment, §2 of the 15 th Amendment), which say that Congress has the power to enforce this amendment. When it’s acting under the Commerce Clause it does not have the ability to strip the states of their sovereign immunity because the 14 th Amendment came after the 11 th Amendment, while the Commerce Clause came before it. The later amendments are understood as abrogating 11th Amendment sovereign immunity. (2)11 th Amendment text does not match its use in Kimel . The 11 th Amendment’s applicability comes out of history and the way it’s been interpreted. Text is often surprisingly unhelpful in constitutional law. The 11 th Amendment may be an extreme case because the text is so disconnected, but even when the text is in more on target, it seldom on its own strength is capable of resolving any constitutional controversy. Also, the text of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is also not particularly helpful. Political and moral theory . The following questions turn out to be very important: a. Idea of federalism . b. Question of equality . When employers base employment decisions on age, does this violate the constitutional rights of those employees? c. What is the appropriate division between Congress and the Supreme Court on these two questions? At the very surface of Kimel is the question of who has the final say, for what reasons, and what deference ought to be paid? 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2. Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (Supreme Court 2000). Facts: Kimel is a librarian in the Florida university system. He and other librarians sue the Florida Board of Regents, seeking salary raises and claiming that the Board of Regents’ failure to raise his salary violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Holding: Insofar as the ADEA purports to permit state employees to sue their state employers for money, it is unconstitutional because it violates the Eleventh Amendment protection of state sovereign immunity. Can strip states of sovereign immunity, but only when the federal government is acting to ensure due process under the 13 th , 14 th or 15 th Amendment. Congruence and proportionality test (from City of Boerne v.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 86

Sager_Constitutional_Law_I - 1 Prof. Sager Fall 2000...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online