18 Pages Posted: 9 Jan 2007 Last revised: 17 Aug 2008
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.
See Tillman, Noncontemporaneous Lawmaking, 16 Cornell J. of Law & Public Policy 331 (2007), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=505822;
Professor Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Response, Against Mix-and-Match Lawmaking, 16 Cornell J. of Law & Public Policy 349 (2007), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=932574;
Tillman, Reply, Defending the (Not So) Indefensible, 16 Cornell J. of Law & Public Policy 363 (2007), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=956155.
Keywords: Congress, statutes, lawmaking, contemporaneity, noncontemporaneity
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Tillman, Seth Barrett, Defending the (Not So) Indefensible: A Reply to Professor Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl. 16 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 363 (2007). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=956155