, whose principles still have constitutional value]] Constitutional law is a body of law dealing with the distribution and exercise of government power.

Not all nation states have codified constitutions, though all such states have a jus commune, or law of the land, that may consist of a variety of imperative and consensual rules. These may include customary law, conventions, statutory law, judge-made law or international rules and norms, etc.

Functions of constitutions

State and legal structure

Constitutional laws may often be considered second order rulemaking or rules about making rules to exercise power. It governs the relationships between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive with the bodies under its authority. One of the key tasks of constitutions within this context is to indicate hierarchies and relationships of power. For example, in a unitary state, the constitution will vest ultimate authority in one central administration and legislature, and judiciary, though there is often a delegation of power or authority to local or municipal authorities. When a constitution establishes a federal state, it will identify the several levels of government coexisting with exclusive or shared areas of jurisdiction over lawmaking, application and enforcement.

Human rights

Human rights or civil liberties form a crucial part of a country's constitution and govern the rights of the individual against the state. Most jurisdictions, like the United States and France, have a codified constitution, with a bill of rights. A recent example is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which was intended to be included in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, that failed to be ratified. Perhaps the most important example is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the UN Charter. These are intended to ensure basic political, social and economic standards that a nation state, or intergovernmental body is obliged to provide to its citizens but many do include its governments.

Some countries like the United Kingdom have no entrenched document setting out fundamental rights; in those jurisdictions the constitution is composed of statute, case law and convention. A case named Entick v. Carrington il a constitutional principle deriving from the common law. John Entick's house was searched and ransacked by Sherriff Carrington. Carrington argued that a warrant from a Government minister, the Earl of Halifax was valid authority, even though there was no statutory provision or court order for it. The court, led by Lord Camden stated that,

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass... If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment."

Inspired by John Locke, the fundamental constitutional principle is that the individual can do anything but that which is forbidden by law, while the state may do nothing but that which is authorised by law.

The commonwealth and the civil law jurisdictions do not share the same constitutional law underpinnings.

Legislative procedure

Another main function of constitutions may be to describe the procedure by which parliaments may legislate. For instance, special majorities may be required to alter the constitution. In bicameral legislatures, there may be a process laid out for second or third readings of bills before a new law can enter into force. Alternatively, there may further be requirements for maximum terms that a government can keep power before holding an election.

Study of constitutional law

Constitutional law is a major focus of legal studies and research. For example, most law students in the United States are required to take a class in Constitutional Law during their first year, and several law journals are devoted to the discussion of constitutional issues.

Since 9/11 tragedy, there has been a steady surge by the world community in the discussion and studies concerning Syariah constitutional concerns throughout the world.

The Rule of Law

The doctrine of the rule of law dictates that government must be conducted according to law.

Dicey identified three essential elements of the British Constitution which were indicative of the rule of law: #Absence of arbitrary power; #Equality before the law; #The constitution is a result of the ordinary law of the land.

The Rule of law is essentially the separation of powers between different organs of government.

Constitutions by region

See also

Constitutionalism

Constitution

Constitutional economics

Rechtsstaat

Rule of law

Rule of law according to Philosophical Perceptions

Rule of law according to the Syariah law

Rule of law according to Christianity law

Rule According to Jewish Scriptures

References

Category:Law

Name	Robert Bork
Imagesize	150px
Order	35th
Title	United States Solicitor General
Term start	June, 1973
Term end	January 20, 1977
President	Richard NixonGerald Ford
Predecessor	Erwin Griswold
Successor	Wade H. McCree
Title2	United States Attorney General(Acting)
Term start2	October 20, 1973
Term end2	December 17, 1973
President2	Richard Nixon
Predecessor2	Elliot Richardson
Successor2	William B. Saxbe
Office3	Judge of United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Termstart3	1982
Termend3	1988
Nominator3	Ronald Reagan
Predecessor3	Carl E. McGowan
Successor3	Clarence Thomas
Birthdate	March 01, 1927
Birthplace	Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Birthname	Robert Heron Bork
Spouse	Claire Davidson (deceased)Mary Ellen Pohl
Religion	Roman Catholic
Alma mater	University of Chicago

Robert Heron Bork (born March 1, 1927) is an American legal scholar who has advocated the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork formerly served as Solicitor General, Acting Attorney General, and judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 1987, he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, but the Senate rejected his nomination. Bork had more success as an antitrust scholar, where his once-idiosyncratic view that antitrust law should focus on maximizing consumer welfare has come to dominate American legal thinking on the subject.

Antitrust scholar

At Yale, he was best known for writing The Antitrust Paradox, a book in which he argued that consumers were often beneficiaries of corporate mergers, and that many then-current readings of the antitrust laws were economically irrational and hurt consumers. Bork's writings on antitrust law, along with those of Richard Posner and other law and economics and Chicago School thinkers, were heavily influential in causing a shift in the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to antitrust laws since the 1970s. which his role in the Saturday Night Massacre exemplified according to his critics.

Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Democrats also warned Reagan there would be a fight if Bork were nominated. Bork also contended in his best-selling book, The Tempting of America, that the brief prepared for Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."

TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination. The rapid response to Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech stunned the Reagan White House, and the accusations went unanswered for 2½ months.

During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper. Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.

To pro-choice legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle. Bork was faulted for his bluntness before the committee, including his criticism of the reasoning underlying Roe v. Wade.

On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC) voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (then R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA) and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) all voting nay.

The vacant seat on the court to which Bork was nominated eventually went to Judge Anthony Kennedy who was unanimously approved by the Senate, 97-0.

Bork, unhappy with his treatment in the nomination process, resigned his appellate-court judgeship in 1988.

Bork as verb

According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was "possibly" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before." Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from?" Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation hearings in Supreme Court history.

In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb Bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."

Recent work

Following his failure to be confirmed, Bork resigned his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and was for several years a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. Bork also consulted for Netscape in the Microsoft litigation. Bork is currently a fellow at the Hudson Institute. He served as a visiting professor at the University of Richmond School of Law and is a professor at Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, FL.

Works and views

Bork has written several books, including the two best-sellers The Tempting of America, about his judicial philosophy and his nomination battle, and Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, in which he argues that the rise of the New Left in the 1960s in the U.S. has undermined the moral standards necessary for civil society, and spawned a generation of intellectuals who oppose Western civilization.

In The Tempting of America (page 82), Bork explained his support for the Supreme Court's desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education:

By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases . . . The Court's realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.

In 1999, Bork wrote an essay about Thomas More and attacked jury nullification as a "pernicious practice".

In 2003, he published Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule Of Judges, an American Enterprise Institute book which includes Bork's philosophical objections to the phenomenon of incorporating international ethical and legal guidelines into the fabric of domestic law. In particular, he focuses on the problems he sees as inherent in the federal judiciary of three nations, Israel, Canada, and the United States, countries where he believes the courts have grossly exceeded their discretionary powers, and which have discarded precedent and common law, and in their place substituted their own liberal judgment.

Bork also advocates a modification to the Constitution that would allow Congressional super-majorities to override Supreme Court decisions, similar to the Canadian notwithstanding clause. Though Bork has many moderate critics, some of his arguments have earned criticism from conservatives as well. Although an opponent of gun control, Bork has denounced what he calls the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, something he describes as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets." Instead, he has argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.

Bork converted to Catholicism in 2003.

In October 2005, Bork publicly criticized the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

On June 6, 2007, Bork filed suit in federal court in New York City against the Yale Club over an incident that had occurred a year earlier. Bork alleged that, while trying to reach the dais to speak at an event, he fell, because of the Yale Club's failure to provide any steps or handrail between the floor and the dais. According to the complaint, Bork's injuries required surgery, immobilized him for months, forced him to use a cane, and left him with a limp. In May, 2008, Bork and the Yale Club reached a confidential, out-of-court settlement.

On June 7, 2007, Bork with several others authored an amicus brief on behalf of Scooter Libby arguing that there was a substantial constitutional question regarding the appointment of the prosecutor in the case, reviving the debate that had previously resulted in the Morrison v. Olson decision.

On December 15, 2007, Bork endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

A 2008 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy collected essays in tribute to Bork. Authors included Frank H. Easterbrook, George Priest, and Douglas Ginsburg.

In popular culture

The look of the character Judge Roy Snyder on The Simpsons is modeled on Robert Bork. The character judge is known for his lenient punishments.

Selected writings

Bork, Robert H. (1978). The Antitrust Paradox. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-465-00369-9.

Bork, Robert H. (1990). The Tempting of America. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-684-84337-4.

Bork, Robert H. (1993). The Antitrust Paradox (second edition). New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-02-904456-1.

Bork, Robert H. (1996). Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. New York: ReganBooks. ISBN 0-06-039163-4.

Bork, Robert H. (2003). Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute Press. ISBN 0-8447-4162-0.

Bork, Robert H. (Ed.) (2005). A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault On American Values. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-4602-0.

Bork, Robert H. (2008) A Time to Speak: Selected Writings and Arguments. Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books. ISBN10/13: 1933859687 / 9781933859682

See also

Aaron Director

List of failed nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

Swiftboating

Gerald Ford Supreme Court candidates

Ronald Reagan Supreme Court candidates

References

Notes

External links

A Conversation with Judge Robert H. Bork - Event Video, Federalist Society, 2007-06-26

Congressional Record: Floor Vote on Bork Nomination

Think Tank Biography: Robert Bork

Bork, Robert H. (1996) Our Judicial Oligarchy . 1996 First Things November .

Category:1927 births Category:Living people Category:American legal scholars Category:American legal writers Category:American political writers Category:American Roman Catholics Category:Ave Maria University faculty Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Calvinism Category:Federalist Society members Category:Politicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court Category:Solicitors General of the United States Category:University of Chicago Law School alumni Category:Watergate figures Category:Yale Law School faculty Category:Nixon administration personnel Category:Scholars of competition law Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Category:United States court of appeals judges appointed by Ronald Reagan Category:University of Richmond faculty Category:Illinois lawyers

Mark V. Tushnet (born 1945) is currently the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A prominent scholar of constitutional law and legal history, he is the author of many books and articles.

Career

Tushnet received his B.A. from Harvard University. He later received an M.A. in history from Yale University and his J.D. from the Yale Law School. Tushnnet has been a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and he taught for many years at the Georgetown University Law Center.

One of the more controversial figures in constitutional theory, he is identified with the Critical Legal Studies movement and once stated in an article that, were he asked to decide actual cases as a judge, he would seek to reach results that would "advance the cause of socialism". Tushnet is a main proponent of the idea that judicial review should be strongly limited and that the Constitution should be returned "to the people." Tushnet is, with Professor Vicki Jackson of Georgetown, the co-author of a casebook entitled "Comparative Constitutional Law" (Foundation Press, 2d ed. 2006).

Personal life

Tushnet is married to Elizabeth Alexander, who directs the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. Their daughter Rebecca is a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, and their daughter Eve is a freelance conservative opinion writer and journalist.

Books

#The New Constitutional Order (Prininceton U. Press 2003). #The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies (Peter Cane & Mark V. Tushnet eds., Oxford U. Press 2003). #Defining the Field of Comparative Constitutional Law (Vicki C. Jackson & Mark Tushnet eds., Praeger 2002). #And L. Michael Seidman et al., Constitutional Law (Little, Brown and Co. 4th ed. 2001). #Et al., Federal Courts in the 21st Century: Cases and Materials (LexisNexis 2001). # #Making Constitutional Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 1961-1991 (1997). #Brown v. Board of Education: The Battle for Integration (1995). #The Warren Court in Historical and Political Perspective (Mark V. Tushnet ed., 1993). #Making Civil Rights Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 1956-1961 (1994). #The NAACP's Legal Strategy Against Segregated Education, 1925-1950 (1987). #The American Law of Slavery, 1810-1860: Considerations of Humanity and Interest (1981). #And L. Michael Seidman et al., Constitutional Law (Little, Brown and Co. Supp. 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991, 2d ed. 1991, Supp. 1992, 1995, 1996, 3d ed. 1996, Supp. 1998, 4th ed. 2001). #And Vicki C. Jackson, Comparative Constitutional Law (Foundation Press 1999). #Taking the Constitution Away From the Courts (Princeton University Press 1999), excerpted in Great Cases in Constitutional Law (Robert P. George ed., Princeton University Press, 2000) (reprinting chapter 1 in substance). Symposium of Commentaries on this book: 34 University of Richmond Law Review 359-566 (2000). #And L. Michael Seidman et al., Teacher's Manual to The First Amendment (Aspen Law & Business 1999). #And Francisco Forrest Martin, The Rights International Companion to Constitutional Law: An International Human Rights Law Supplement (Kluwer Law International 1999). #And L. Michael Seidman, Remnants of Belief: Contemporary Constitutional Issues (Oxford University Press 1996). #Constitutional Issues: The Death Penalty (Facts On File, Inc. 1994). #Constitutional Law (International Library of Essays in Law & Legal Theory) (Mark V. Tushnet, ed., New York University Press 1992). #Comparative Constitutional Federalism: Europe and America (Mark V. Tushnet ed., Greenwood Press 1990). #Central America and the Law: The Constitution, Civil Liberties, and the Courts (South End Press 1988). #Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law (Harvard University Press 1988). #I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases, Malaysia: Beacon Press, pp. 256, (2008) ISBN 978-080700036-6. # Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle over Guns (Inalienable Rights). #

Footnotes

External links

Harvard Law School faculty page for Professor Tushnet

Georgetown profile of Professor Tushnet

Category:1945 births Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States Category:American legal scholars Category:Living people Category:Yale Law School alumni Category:Harvard University alumni Category:Harvard Law School faculty Category:Georgetown University Law Center faculty Category:Scholars of constitutional law Category:Legal historians

Frank Askin is an American jurist and professor of law at Rutgers School of Law - Newark. He was as appointed to the Rutgers faculty upon his graduation from that school with highest honors in 1966. Admitted to the law school without an undergraduate degree, he was awarded a B.A. from City College of New York at the same time he received his J.D. from Rutgers.

In 1970, he established the Constitutional Litigation Clinic as part of the law school's curriculum. Under his guidance, the clinic litigated the first police surveillance cases in the nation; battled the FBI over the investigation and maintenance of files on two precocious New Jersey high schoolers who corresponded with "the wrong persons"; defended affirmative action programs up to the United States Supreme Court; challenged the New Jersey State Police for stopping and searching "long-haired travelers" on the state's highways; argued for the right of the homeless to vote and to have access to public library facilities; and protected the right of grassroots advocacy groups to take their messages door-to-door and to privately owned shopping malls. He still is associated with the clinic.

Professor Askin has been a member of the National Board of the American Civil Liberties Union since 1969 and has been one of the ACLU's four general counsel since 1976. In 1986, he was the (unsuccessful) Democratic candidate for Congress in New Jersey's 11th District, covering parts of Essex and Morris Counties.

His memoir, Defending Rights: A Life in Law and Politics, was published in 1997. He is listed in Woodward & White's Best Lawyers in America.

References

Rutgers profile

External links

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~askin/

Category:Year of birth missing (living people) Category:Living people Category:City College of New York alumni Category:Rutgers School of Law - Newark alumni Category:Rutgers School of Law—Newark faculty

Name	Erwin Chemerinsky
Caption	Erwin Chemerinsky speaking at the William & Mary School of Law in September 2007.
Birth date	May 14, 1953
Birth place	Chicago, Illinois
Nationality
Fields	Constitutional law, civil procedure
Workplaces	DePaul College of Law (1980–83)University of Southern California Law School (1983–2004)Duke School of Law (2004–2008)University of California, Irvine School of Law (2008–present)
Alma mater	Northwestern University (1975)Harvard Law School (1978)
Signature

Erwin Chemerinsky (born May 14, 1953) is an American lawyer and law professor. He is a prominent scholar in United States constitutional law and federal civil procedure. He is the current and founding dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, which began classes in the fall semester of 2009.

Early life and education

Raised in a working-class Jewish family on Chicago's South Side, Chemerinsky attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools for high school. He also believes that gay marriage should be legal.

Chemerinsky also represents a client held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. He is in favor of affirmative action.

Irvine 11

Chemerinsky has defended freedom of speech from the Heckler's veto. Following an incident in which nine members of the (UCI) Muslim Students Union disrupted a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, Chemerinsky asserted that broad freedom exists to invite speakers and hold demonstrations, but that once a speaker has begun an invited lecture, “You have the right – if you disagree with me – to go outside and perform your protest. But you don’t get the right to come in when I’m talking and shout me down. Otherwise people can always silence a speaker by heckler’s veto, and results.” After the interruptions, Ambassador Oren completed his remarks and canceled the Q&A; session. The students were arrested by City of Irvine Police, who were on hand.

Recent publicity

In addition to teaching at the School of Law, Chemerinsky also teaches undergraduate classes in Political Science. President Clinton briefly considered Chemerinsky for an opening on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, his brief candidacy ended when Senate Republicans sent the word that his nomination would be dead on arrival.

In 2006 he declined an offer to become the next dean at the University of North Carolina School of Law. He was then a finalist to become dean at Duke University School of Law.

Appointment controversy to head the UCI School of Law

On September 20, 2007, Chemerinsky was approved by the Regents of the University of California as the founding dean of the planned University of California, Irvine School of Law, resolving a hiring controversy. After signing a contract on September 4, 2007, the hire was rescinded by UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake, because he felt the law professor's commentaries were "polarizing" and would not serve the interests of California's first new public law school in 40 years; Drake claimed the decision was his own and not the subject of any outside influence.

The action was criticized by both liberal and conservative scholars who felt it hindered the academic mission of the law school, and few believed Chancellor Drake's claims that it was not the result of outside influence. The issue was the subject of an editorial in The New York Times on Friday, September 14. Details emerged revealing that UCI had received criticism on the hire from California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who criticized Chemerinsky's grasp of death penalty appeals, as well as a group of prominent Orange County Republicans and Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who wanted to derail the appointment. Drake traveled over a weekend to Durham, North Carolina, and the two reached an agreement late Sunday evening.

On September 17, Chemerinsky issued a joint press release with UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake indicating that Chemerinsky would head the UCI law school, stating "Our new law school will be founded on the bedrock principle of academic freedom. The chancellor reiterated his lifelong, unqualified commitment to academic freedom, which extends to every faculty member, including deans and other senior administrators."

Notable Commissions

LAPD panel reviewing the Rampart Scandal

LA commission reviewing irregularities in LA city contracting.

Helped write the LA city charter.

Helped draft the Belarus constitution.

Publications

Chemerinsky has published several books:

The Conservative Assault on the Constitution (Simon & Schuster 2010)

Enhancing Government (Stanford University Press 2008)

Federal Jurisdiction (Aspen Law & Business 5th ed. 2007)

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Law & Business 3d ed. 2006)

Constitutional Law (Aspen Law & Business 2d ed. 2005)

Interpreting the Constitution (Praeger 1987)

In addition, Chemerinsky has published over one hundred law review articles, including publications in the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and Southern California Law Review.

Personal

Chemerinsky is married to Catherine Fisk, who is a law professor at UC Irvine.

References

External links

Duke University School of Law biography

University of Southern California Law School biography

PLI Faculty

UCI Faculty

Category:1953 births Category:American legal scholars Category:Duke Law School faculty Category:Guantanamo Bay attorneys Category:Harvard Law School alumni Category:Living people Category:People from Irvine, California Category:University of California, Irvine faculty Category:Scholars of constitutional law Category:Law school deans Category:American Jews Category:Northwestern University alumni