Articles

WHAT RUDY HASN'T TAKEN CREDIT FOR: FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITS ON REGULATION OF ADVERTISING ON GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY Irene Segal Ayers

This Article examines the inconsistent application of public forum doctrine in numerous recent legal clashes between advertisers and governments refusing to run certain ads on government property. The Author traces the evolution of the Supreme Court's public forum doctrine and shows how recurrent problems with public forum doctrine manifest themselves in the recent advertising cases, with particular emphasis on the case of New York Magazine v. Metropolitan Transit Authority. Together with the commercial/noncommercial speech dichotomy with which it is often linked, public forum doctrine fails to uphold the First Amendment's prohibition of government censorship. The Article concludes that if neither the older ad hoc balancing approach nor the current rule-based categorical approach work well to protect speech on government property, a practical solution may be to strengthen the default category of public forum doctrine, the “nonpublic forum.”

THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF HUMAN CLONING Elizabeth Price Foley

Given the apparent inevitability of applying cloning technology to humans, this Article explores the most significant resulting legal implications. The Author discusses the legitimacy of commonly feared science fiction abuses, current laws that may prevent such abuses from occurring, as well as possible constitutional impediments to banning human closing, including the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Author also explores the governmental interest(s) in regulating human cloning to assess whether such interests are sufficient to survive the applicable level of judicial scrutiny. She concludes that, contrary to popular public opinion, the current legal regime appears prepared to handle human cloning. Moreover, should Americans wish to ban the practice, they may not be able to do so consistent with the current Constitution.

PARADING THE SAURIAN TAIL: PROJECTION, JUNG, AND THE LAW Collin O'Connor Udell

This Article discusses Jungian psychoanalytic theory as it applies to recent federal jurisdiction-stripping legislation (the AEDPA, IIRIRA, and PLRA) and efforts to reign in the federal judiciary (the Sentencing Guidelines, impeachment threats, judicial activism diatribes, and impeded confirmation of federal judicial nominees). It posits that these efforts reflect archetypically triggered protection, aimed predictably at disfavored populations, but also targeting the federal judiciary as the protector of those populations' rights. It argues that Jung's work provides a provocative model for scrutinizing attempts to bind or exclude either the disfavored among us or the federal judiciary.