All in Constitutional

By: Pranathi Charasala ‘25

Introduction

B. R. Ambedkar, father of the Indian Constitution, famously argued that the caste system is an inherently Hindu practice and has long been crucial to a Hindu identity. It has governed familial relationships, diets, and occupations. The caste system includes four varnas, or castes: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra. The Brahmans (priests) are the highest caste, followed by the Kshatriyas (kings, soldiers, etc.), Vaishyas (merchants), and the Shudras (laborers, peasants).

Sam Ross ‘25

I. Introduction

The “criminalization” of homelessness refers to “measures that prohibit life-sustaining activities … in public spaces.” Legislation includes laws “that make it illegal to sleep, sit, or store personal belongings in public spaces in cities where people are forced to live in public spaces.” The criminalization of homelessness in America dates back to the colonial era; anti-vagrancy laws in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries prohibited the very existence of “wanderers.” Colonial governments wanted to limit the amount of people traveling long distances to find work to keep them from taking advantage of the taxpayer-funded social safety net.

Glenna Li ‘24

I. Introduction

“Shadow docket” cases enable the Supreme Court to hear time-sensitive cases that, if not promptly decided on, would significantly alter the status quo for parties involved. Its nebulous name derives from the frequent occurrence of shadow docket decisions being released late at night in the form of terse, one to two sentence summaries.1 Due to their urgent nature, shadow docket cases do not require the traditional legal procedures “merits docket” cases undergo, such as oral argument, full briefing by multiple parties, and lengthy, signed opinions. The Court has increased its volume of shadow docket cases in recent years, which has raised concern regarding the structure, impact, and processes of legal decision-making.

By: Joaquin Suriel ‘25

I. Introduction

The purpose of this article is to give a brief introduction into the history and legal jurisprudence behind the landmark ruling in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Special attention will be put on Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion. Although a bit of a truism, his tripartite framework serves as an excellent lens to look through when assessing presidential power. His reasoning is clear and concise, and allows everyday citizens of the United States to engage in and formulate opinions about the judiciary, as his logic is straightforward. Special attention will be paid to George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations, as partisanship has grown and gridlock has become the norm under their tenures. Several cases will be examined in which the president took a broad reading of his powers established in Article II, and how Justice Jackson’s framework can be applied to illuminate judicial reasoning as it pertains to the scope of presidential power.

By: Alex Herazy ‘25

I. Introduction and Overview of the 1996 Communications Decency Act

At the time of writing, yet another Facebook scandal just erupted—this time, the “Facebook Papers.” In recent months, explosive allegations from ex-Facebook employees turned whistleblowers, like Frances Haugen, have internally rocked the company. Haugen recently appeared on Capitol Hill to testify about her alleged charges of Facebook’s wrongdoing and deception. In addition to these allegations, Facebook is also battling an antitrust lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). For background, Facebook Inc. is the parent company of several major subsidiaries, most notably messaging app WhatsApp, social media platform Instagram, and virtual gaming company Oculus VR.