The first two terms of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency (1933–1941) were periods of great administrative innovation. Responding to the Great Depression, Congress created scores of new administrative agencies charged with overseeing economic policy and implementing novel social welfare programs. The story of the constitutional difficulties that some of these policy innovations encountered is a staple of both New Deal historiography and the constitutional history of twentieth-century America. There has been very little writing, however, about how courts and the New Deal–era administrative state interacted after these constitutional battles ended.

This Article attempts to identify and clarify what is genuinely new about the “new paradigm” of armed conflict after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Assuming that sound policy counsels treating certain aspects of the global struggle against modern transnational terrorist networks within the legal rubric of war, this Article stresses that the principal challenge such networks pose is that they require international humanitarian law, somewhat incongruously, to graft conventions—in both the formal and informal senses of that word—onto an unconventional form of organized violence. Furthermore, this process occurs in a context in which one diffuse “party” to the conflict both (1) repudiates a predicate axiom of international humanitarian law and (2) exhibits an organizational structure at odds with the one presupposed by the inherited conventions of war.

Championed on the Supreme Court by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas and in academia most prominently by Professor Akhil Amar, textualism has emerged within the past twenty years as a leading school of constitutional interpretation. Textualists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original public meaning, and in seeking that meaning, they closely parse the Constitution’s words and grammar and the placement of clauses in the document. They have assumed that this close parsing recaptures original meaning, but, perhaps because it seems obviously correct, that assumption has neither been defended nor challenged. This Article uses Professor Amar’s widely acclaimed masterpiece of the textualist movement, The Bill of Rights, as a case study to test the validity of that assumption.

State antitrust laws ordinarily supplement federal law by providing a cause of action for anticompetitive activity that occurs in the state. Some states, however, have construed their antitrust regimes to reach conduct that occurs outside the state’s boundaries. Such regulation raises significant federalism and Commerce Clause concerns by creating possible extraterritorial liability for conduct with virtually no in-state effect. This Note examines two Commerce Clause standards that may limit the degree to which state antitrust laws may exercise extraterritorial force—the “dormant” or “negative” Commerce Clause and the so-called “Extraterritorial Principle.”