Peer-Reviewed Journal Details
Mandatory Fields
Tillman, Seth Barrett
2007
Unknown
Cornell journal of law and public policy
Defending the (Not So) Indefensible: A Reply to Professor Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Published
()
Optional Fields
16
2
363
380
This article is cited 11 times (as of October 4, 2019). The journal this article was published in was: an ELSEVIER/SCOPUS/SJR-ranked law journal, and has an A ranking from the Australia Research Council's last reference. It was ranked at 134 of 1547 law journals world wide by the Washington & Lee law journal rankings. It has an A* ranking from Deakin. This paper replies to Professor Bruhl's response, Against Mix-and-Match Lawmaking, to my opening article: Noncontemporaneous Lawmaking. The trilogy of articles discuss the constitutional validity (or invalidity) of noncontemporaneous lawmaking, i.e., the House and the Senate passing the same bill, but not within a given two-year House term, followed by subsequent presentment to the President (some unspecified time thereafter). Professor Bruhl's erudite essay required that I clarify and fine tune my prior position. I respond to his arguments with textual, historical, and quasi-structural arguments. This paper, like the opening article, makes heavy use of foreign authority, particularly Irish and Australian authority.
US
1069-0565
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=956155
Grant Details