Proportionality principles in American Law: Controlling excessive government actions

Proportionality Principles in American Law: Controlling Excessive Government Actions

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 1-320

  Thomas Sullivan, E ^a   Frase, Richard S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bibliographic information; Disproportionality; Excessiveness; Individual rights; Judicial review; Proportionality; Punishment; Unconstitutional

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921269085     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195324938.001.0001     Document Type: Book

References (36)

1. Kathleen M. Sullivan, The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22, 57-68 (1992).
2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
3. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972);
4. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).
5. Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261
6. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
7. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996).
8. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997).
9. Roger P. Alford, In Search of a Theory for Constitutional Comparativism, 52 UCLA L. REV. 639, 660 (2005)
10. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 519-20 (1965) (Black, J., dissenting).
11. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
12. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970).
13. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
14. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
15. Bajakajian v. United States, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).
16. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 545 (1997).
17. Akhil Reed Amar, Terry and Fourth Amendment First Principles, 72 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 1097, 1098, 1120-23 (1998);
18. Sherry F. Colb, The Qualitative Dimensions of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness," 98 COLUM. L. REV. 1642, 1724-25 (1998);
19. Timothy P. O'Neill, Beyond Privacy, Beyond Probable Cause, Beyond the Fourth Amendment: New Strategies for Fighting Pretext Arrests, 69 COLO. L. REV. 693, 719-24 (1998);
20. William J. Stuntz, O.J. Simpson, Bill Clinton, and the Transubstantive Fourth Amendment, 114 HARV. L. REV. 842, 869-76 (2001).
21. Thomas Y. Davies, The Fictional Character of Law-and-Order Originalism: A Case Study of the Distortions and Evasions of Framing-Era Arrest Doctrine in Atwater v. Lago Vista, 37 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 239, 322-26 (2002)
22. Eugene Volokh, Crime Severity and Constitutional Line-drawing, 90 VA. L. REV. 1957 (2004);
23. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 754-55
24. Rebecca Grant, In Search of Lawful Targets, 86 AIR FORCE MAGAZINE 38, 38 (2003)
25. Jim Rutenberg, Conceding Missteps, Bush Urges Patience on Iraq, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 26, 2006, A1.
26. Ron Suskind, the one percent doctrine (Simon & Schuster 2006).
27. Paul B. Marrow, The Unconscionability of a Liquidated Damages Clause, 22 PACE L. REV. 27, 35 (2001).
28. Andrew Von Hirsch et al., Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: An analysis of recent research 41-43 (Hart 1999);
29. Norval Morris & Colin Howard, studies in criminal law 147-96 (Clarendon 1964);
30. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1028-29 (Stevens, J., dissenting);
31. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36, 538 (1979);
32. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99 (1991).
33. Susan R. Klein, The Discriminatory Application of Substantive Due Process: A Tale of Two Vehicles, 1997 U. ILL. L. REV. 453, 482.
34. Norval Morris, Madness and the criminal law 182-87 (1982).
35. Andrew Von Hirsch, Censure and sanctions(1993).
36. Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis (ON THE LAW OF WAR AND PEACE) (1625) (Francis W. Kelsey trans., Clarendon 1925), available at http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/grotius/gro-102.htm.