Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Two very good posts by Volokh on state constitutional law, specifically why didn't Missouri rely on the state constitution for its problematic second-guessing of whether executing juveniles is constitutional? He comes up with some possible answers to that one.
I would say generally that Missouri is not a groundbreaker on state constitutional law. There is a tendency in Missouri to say that police power trumps the state constitution - which is obviously incoherent. State con law is not taught at Missouri Law Schools (maybe at wash u, I haven't checked) and is not on the bar exam.
I know, from eugene's post, that the state issues were raised by defendant. I don't know how well they were briefed or argued. Sometimes they just get a footnote or are treated as an afterthought, and too often the court treats them that way too.
I would say generally that Missouri is not a groundbreaker on state constitutional law. There is a tendency in Missouri to say that police power trumps the state constitution - which is obviously incoherent. State con law is not taught at Missouri Law Schools (maybe at wash u, I haven't checked) and is not on the bar exam.
I know, from eugene's post, that the state issues were raised by defendant. I don't know how well they were briefed or argued. Sometimes they just get a footnote or are treated as an afterthought, and too often the court treats them that way too.
Comments:
Post a Comment
