Abstract
Displeased with judicial interpretations of constitutional provisions and enacted statutes, Congress—either politically unwilling or unable to propose constitutional amendments or amend substantive law—has resorted to questionable jurisdictional and procedural devices to compel change in judicial outcomes. This Article analyzes the use of such devices in three seemingly unrelated recently enacted statutes. The use of these devices raises profound separation of powers issues. In response, a divergence has developed in the Supreme Court's view of the core constitutional authority of Article III courts.
How to Cite
40 Ariz. L. Rev. 389 (1998)
21
Views
10
Downloads
