Part 1 of 3
FindLaw columnists, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar critique the Supreme Court’s concept of stare decisis — the idea that weight should be given, in the Court’s decisionmaking, to the Court’s own prior precedent on the same issue. The concept, as the Amars explain, may be influential in two important cases this term, on affirmative action and same-sex sodomy.

FindLaw columnists, Yale and UC Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar offer further reflections on a key issue raised by two cases to be resolved during this year’s Supreme Court Term. Each case — one on same-sex sodomy, one on affirmative action — will force the Court to address the role of its own precedent, and the possible “reliance” interests that may militate against overruling past cases.

Part 2 of 3; December 27, 2002

FindLaw columnist and U.C. Hastings law professor Vikram David Amar discusses stare decisis issues that will affect two important cases in the current Supreme Court term. The column is the last a three part series by Amar and his co-columnist and “brother in law,” Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar. In this part, Vikram Amar confronts in depth the argument that decisions such as the Bakke affirmative action ruling, and Bowers sodomy ruling should not be overruled due to society’s reliance on them.

Part 3 of 3;  Friday, Jan. 10, 2003

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss a recent, provocative Ninth Circuit decision that clashes with the Ashcroft Justice Department’s policy on doctors’ recommending marijuana for medical use. The Amars address the following questions, among others: How does the case fit into Ninth Circuit patterns? Could the same result have been reached via a stronger rationale?
Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar respond to recent criticisms of controversial federal appellate court nominee Michael McConnell, which appeared in the National Review and the American Prospect. The Amars contend that the critiques are misguided, and Senators should enthusiastically vote to confirm the well-respected Professor McConnell.
Friday, Nov. 01, 2002

FindLaw columnist and Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar discusses the Supreme Court’s restrictive rules on media coverage, note-taking by the public, and oral argument transcripts. Amar contends that these rules target expression, and ironically would never pass muster under the Court’s own First Amendment precedents.
Friday, Oct. 18, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss the issues raised by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent order directing ballots to be printed with Frank Lautenberg’s name replacing Robert Torricelli’s. What are the New Jersey law questions relating to the court’s order? Was this the right strategic call for Democrats? And, might the U.S. Supreme Court decide to review this case despite the fact that it raises mainly state law issues?
Friday, Oct. 04, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss the surprising stability of law firm associates’ high salaries despite the country’s current economic woes. The Amars consider questions such as the following, which have been on many associates’ and observers’ minds: Why are the salaries still so high? Why do law firms seem to prefer layoffs to salary cuts? Why don’t partners decrease their own huge draws rather than laying off associates or cutting salaries? And, how do firms’ choices affect their reputations among law students?
Friday, Sep. 20, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar critique our flawed Executive succession system — explaining why it does not properly provide for a series of scenarios that, in the age of the war on terrorism, are all the more likely to occur. The Amars argue that we need to change our succession statute in a number of ways — lest there be a crisis of authority in instances in which, for example, both the President and Vice President are hurt or killed in an assassination attempt or terrorist attack. They paint a worrisome portrait of constitutional unpreparedness, but at the same suggest it can quite easily be remedied if Congress will focus on the problem.
Friday, Sep. 06, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar engage in a spirited exchange about whether U.S. Supreme Court Justices, rather than sitting on the Court for life, ought to sit for only limited terms on the Court, and then finish out their life tenure on lower federal courts. The Amars consider such questions as: Could this proposal be accomplished without a Constitutional amendment? Would it solve the possible problem of the appearance or actuality of Justices’ “political” retirements, designed to ensure they are replaced with like-minded successors? How would the proposal be implemented?
Friday, Aug. 23, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar argue that both the majority and dissent in the Supreme Court’s end-of-Term case on state regulation of judicial elections missed the boat. The Amars contend that a state can constitutionally ensure that its judges have the quality of judiciousness, and that no one has a right to sit as a judge regardless of their views. But they also argue for protections for candidates’ core political and, especially, anti-incumbent speech, and against rules that result in lawyers being disbarred for speech.
Friday, Aug. 09, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss the ways, over our history, the Constitution has addressed (and, at times, failed to address) issues relating to Presidential succession. What happens, for instance, if the President and Vice President are both arguably incapacitated at the same time? As the Amars explain, there is still no good answer to that question.
Friday, Jul. 26, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss additional mathematical questions raised by the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia. In Atkins, the Court held that mentally retarded convicts could not constitutionally be executed. In so holding, the Court relied on an increasing national consensus that such executions are cruel and unusual. But how is such a consensus calculated? The Amars weigh in on wrong, and right, way to figure out whether such a consensus exists.
Friday, Jul. 12, 2002

In Part One of a two part series, FindLaw columnists, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss an important constitutional question: What statistics should count in the determination of whether there is an evolving national consensus that a particular kind of punishment violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments”? The Amars evaluate the view that Justice Stevens recnently outlined in the Atkins decision banning execution of the mentally retarded, and the contrary view that Justice Scalia presented in dissent in the same case.
Friday, Jun. 28, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar engage in a dialogue about Akhil’s recent proposal that every American should be required to undergo a DNA test so that a national DNA database can be created — in part, to ensure that innocent people are not wrongly convicted for crimes they did not commit. In the dialogue, Vik raises possible objections to the proposal, and tests Akhil’s view on the Fourth Amendment status of the database against Akhil’s view on the Fourth Amendment status of high school drug testing.
Friday, May. 17, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar weigh in on an important question: Does Attorney General Ashcroft’s new FBI surveillance regulation violate the Fourth Amendment? In the course of explaining why it might or might not, the Amars isolate what they contend are a number of misconceptions that have hampered the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Amendment.
Friday, Jun. 14, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar offer a way to prevent the phenomenon that has caused widespread protest in France — the presence of LePen, rather than the more popular Jospin, in the runoff against Chirac for the Presidency — from recurring, either there or in any U.S. federal or state election. The Amars explain how a Single Transferable Voting, or “instant runoff,” system works, and how it would have affected situations ranging from the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, to the historic four-way Presidential race of 1860.
Friday, May. 03, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar employ statistical evidence and argumentation to take on a question that has nagged at Supreme Court lawyers for years: What accounts for the stunning frequency with which the Supreme Court reverses the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — sometimes 9-0, and often with only a few dissenting votes?
Friday, Apr. 19, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar contend that Presidents have a duty to abide by their own interpretations of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Amars take issue with President Bush’s recent decision to sign the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill despite having expressed strong qualms that it violates the First Amendment.
Friday, Apr. 05, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss claims by President Bush and other Republicans that Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee engaged in foul play when they decided to block Charles Pickering’s nomination, declining to send it to the full Senate. Does the Constitution requite full Senate consideration of Presidential judicial nominees? The Amars explain the answer.
Friday, Mar. 22, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss an important Fourth Amendment case in which the Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument. The case involves a school board policy under which every student at a high school who participates in extracurricular activities must undergo a drug test. The Amars discuss both the specifics of the case and their more general views on the Fourth Amendment test the Court should apply in such a case.
Friday, Mar. 08, 2002

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” In a thought-provoking dialogue, Yale and U.C. Hastings law professors, and “brothers in law” Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss what the Amendment means. For instance, when someone is compelled to testify before Congress, does the Amendment provide narrow “testimonial” immunity, preventing only the introduction of the testimony itself in a criminal trial? Or does it also confer broad “use-fruits” immunity, which also would exclude from a criminal trial all leads and fruits generated by that testimony?
Friday, Feb. 22, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar, in an impassioned open letter to Senator Leahy, make the case for why they believe liberals and conservatives alike should support the nomination of Professor Michael McConnell to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Amars contend that McConnell is, in many ways, not just a good nominee but an ideal one, and reply to critics who have faulted him for his views on the Constitution’s religion clauses by arguing that his views are actually quite moderate.
Friday, Feb. 08, 2002

In Part Two of a two-part series on appointments and confirmations, Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar discuss what types of questions Senators might want to ask judicial nominees should and should not be off limits. The Amars’ analysis is carefully tailored to take into account the position for which the nominee has been nominated, as well as his or her prior experience.
Friday, Jan. 25, 2002

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar present two ingenious ways in which, without any Constitutional amendment, the nation could move to what would, in effect, be a system of direct national election of the President, thereby bypassing the electoral college system and ensuring that the winner of the popular vote would win the election. The system could also ensure uniform national voting standards in Presidential elections — solving the equal protection issues that plagued the 2000 Florida election.
Friday, Dec. 28, 2001

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar take aim at the top ten modern arguments for the electoral college. The Amars contend that most arguments against direct Presidential elections would, if accepted, destroy our longstanding tradition of direct gubernatorial elections, too. Others simply do not outweigh the fundamental one person, one vote principle.
Friday, Dec. 14, 2001

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar explain the deep flaws in traditional explanations for why we have the electoral college, rather than a simpler direct election system, in Presidential elections. The Amars contend the electoral college is not really about giving smaller states a bigger voice; instead, the system has tainted origins relating to north/south tensions, slavery, and even the denial of women’s suffrage.
Friday, Nov. 30, 2001

Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar weigh in on the new Department of Justice regulation relating to attorney-client communications. The regulation would allow federal agents to monitor traditionally confidential meetings between inmates (including detainees and those held as witnesses) and their attorneys, whenever Attorney General Ashcroft determines that “reasonable suspicion exists to believe that an inmate may use the communications with attorneys . . . to facilitate acts of terrorism.”
Friday, Nov. 16, 2001

In Part One of a two part series on constitutional issues raised by the trial of Timothy McVeigh, FindLaw columnist and Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar contends that moving McVeigh’s trial from Oklahoma to Colorado was clearly unconstitutional.
Friday, Jul. 13, 2001

In Part Two of a two-part series on constitutional issues raised by the trial of Timothy McVeigh, Yale law professor, author, and FindLaw columnist Akhil Reed Amar discusses how international views on the death penalty may be relevant to interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. An emerging trend among the fifty states on death penalty issues can inform our reading of the words “cruel” and “unusual”; Amar asks whether an international trend, like the EU’s anti-death-penalty stance, can do the same.
Wednesday, Aug. 8, 2001