Overruling INS v. Chadha: Advice on Choreography - A Reply to Professor Sanford V. Levinson
Pierce Law Review, Vol. 4, p. 207, 2006
University of New Hampshire Law Review, Vol. 4, p. 207, 2006
12 Pages Posted: 4 May 2006 Last revised: 5 Oct 2011
Date Written: 2006
Abstract
This article is published in conjunction with my MODEL CONTINUITY OF CONGRESS STATUTE. Professor Sanford V. Levinson in a comment, appearing with the MODEL, has voiced legal and prudential objections to my proposed statutory solution. This Reply responds to those objections.
My opening article appears at: Tillman, Model, 4 PIERCE LAW REVIEW 191 (2006), also appearing at, http://ssrn.com/abstract=891560. Professor Sanford V. Levinson comments on my Model at: Levinson, Comment, Assuring Continuity of Government, 4 PIERCE LAW REVIEW 201 (2006), also appearing at, http://ssrn.com/abstract=900607. I reply to his comment at: Tillman, Reply, Overruling INS v. Chadha, 4 PIERCE LAW REVIEW 207 (2006), also appearing at, http://ssrn.com/abstract=900589.
Since publication, Pierce Law Review has been renamed University of New Hampshire Law Review.
Keywords: continuity, congress, textualist, Chadha
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation