Steven T. Voigt
64 Clev. St. L. Rev. Et Cetera 2 (2016)
This paper challenges the position that the Tenth Amendment merely states an abstract concept and has no place in constitutional interpretation. The history of the Tenth Amendment portrays a much greater significance for this amendment. Not only did the Tenth Amendment likely save the Constitution and preserve the union, but it imposed very real restraints on federal power. The implication for modern courts is that the Tenth Amendment cannot be ignored. Far from just stating a truism, it sets forth a constitutional rule of interpretation that must be applied whenever the scope of any federal power is examined.
Colin W. Maguire
64 Clev. St. L. Rev. Et Cetera 1 (2015)
Making big news in legal circles and on Capitol Hill was the approval of the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers’ new agency rule regarding the definition of “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA). In a nutshell, these government agencies can regulate development or industrial activity that impacts the “Waters of the United States.” Allegedly new science shows that there are significant hydrological connections between small streams and wetlands, also known as tributaries, areas around those tributaries, and larger bodies of water; this creates more “categorical assertions of CWA jurisdiction,” and allegedly increases CWA jurisdictional assertions by as much as 5%, which is still many millions of acres of land. The EPA has even provided a handsome graphic with fun facts to demonstrate this hydrological connection as established under the new rule.
Patrick J. Charles, J.D., L.L.M.
63 Clev. St. L. Rev. Et Cetera 1 (2015)
A number of originalists are on record asserting the disclaimer that “orginalism is not history,” therefore claiming that originalism does not suffer from the problems typically associated with history-in-law. This Article challenges that assertion, both on the grounds that originalism relies on historical evidence in reaching legal determinations—therefore falsely giving rise to the presumption that originalism and history are one and the same—and also on the grounds that originalists, when advocating before the courts, do not make a distinction between originalism and history. This Article further argues that if originalists want to issue an accurate disclaimer, it should state that “originalism is not intended to be accurate history.” This would correct many of the public’s misconceptions as to what does and what does not constitute originalism.
In a letter addressed to The Cleveland State Law Review‘s Volume 63 Editor-in-Chief, Mr. Timothy Sandefur responded to an article featured in the Law Review‘s “History and the Meaning of the Constitution” Symposium issue: Scott D. Gerber, Liberal Originalism: The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation, 63 Clev. St. L. Rev. 1 (2014).
Mr. Sandefur currently serves as Principal Attorney in the National Litigation Center of the Pacific Legal Foundation, and is also an Adjunct Scholar with the Cato Institute.
The Cleveland State Law Review is proud to announce its new online companion publication, Et Cetera! Launched in May 2015, Et Cetera was developed by Kevin P. Donoughe, Online Articles Editor, and the Volume 63 Editorial Board.
Et Cetera Mission Statement
Et Cetera is the online companion journal to The Cleveland State Law Review and is the next stage in the Law Review’s continued advancement as a legal periodical. Conceived, developed, and launched in 2015 by the Volume 63 Editorial Board, Et Cetera endeavors to contribute to the evolution of online legal scholarship and aims to access a broader audience than that of the traditional print journal. Et Cetera offers a flexible outlet for the Law Review to publish short, original pieces of scholarship, commentary on current legal topics and upcoming cases, and scholarly responses to articles published in the print edition of the Law Review. Et Cetera enables authors to disseminate their short scholarly works quickly, yet each work published in Et Cetera still receives a traditional print citation.
The Cleveland State Law Review encourages legal academics, practitioners, judges, and law students to submit their manuscripts to Et Cetera. Though the Law Review strongly encourages authors submitting manuscripts to Et Cetera to constrain their works to 5,000 words or fewer, with light footnoting, the Editors may consider pieces that exceed these constraints at their discretion. Et Cetera is published on a rolling basis, organized into annual volumes that correspond with the academic year.