Symposium: The Commerce Clause and the Global Economy
It is my honor to introduce Chapman Law Review's first issue of volume twenty-two. We open with a response to an article published in the first issue of volume twenty-one. This current issue also consists of our "paper-only symposium," a collection of scholarly works discussing "The Commerce Clause and the Global Economy."
This issue begins with a thorough response from Professor Seth Barrett Tillman to Professor John Yoo's article, Franklin Roosevelt and Presidential Power. Professor Tillman discusses the often misunderstood and mischaracterized actions of President Lincoln concerning Ex parte Merryman. His article encourages readers to re-evaluate the oft-repeated narrative of President Lincoln's executive actions.
The symposium then opens with an introduction by Professor Frank J. Doti that provides insight into the inspiration behind the creation of this written symposium and the articles in the collection, while providing Professor Doti's own scholarly thoughts on the recent South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. decision. Following Professor Doti's introduction, are seven thought-provoking articles discussing various aspects of the Commerce Clause—or dormant Commerce Clause—and its effect on the economy within and outside of the United States.
Mr. Michael T. Fatale begins the discussion with an article focused on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Wayfair, and the implications of overruling the physical presence rule. Next, Professor Edward A. Zelinsky provides a comparative analysis of Wayfair and Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne and discusses the future of the dormant Commerce Clause. Professor Darien Shanske examines Wayfair in the broader context of the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence and the proportionality principle. Professor Keigo Fuchi argues for the adoption of a dormant Commerce Clause counterpart in Japan and discusses the benefits from a comparative perspective. Next, Professor Tania Sebastian compares the hiring practices of India and the United States in light of the Commerce Clause within the United States and contrasts that with the lack of an equivalent clause in India. Professor F. E. Guerra-Pujol takes a unique perspective and focuses on the future impact the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence will have on rapidly growing fields of technology and proposes a new approach to the Court's stare decisis principle in these areas. Mr. Louis Cholden-Brown closes out our symposium with an article examining the impact of the dormant Commerce Clause on food law and proposes that the Court refrain from balancing interests and uphold local ordinances in certain circumstances.
Chapman Law Review is grateful for the continued support of the members of the administration and faculty that made this written symposium and the publication of this issue possible, including: Dean of Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Matthew Parlow; our faculty advisor, Professor Celestine Richards McConville; and our faculty advisory committee, Professors Deepa Badrinarayana, Scott Howe, Janine Kim, Ron Steiner, and Associate Dean of Research and Faculty Development, Donald Kochan. A special thank you goes to Professors Frank J. Doti and Kenneth Stahl for their assistance in formulating the concept behind this symposium and soliciting scholars. Last but not least, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the staff of the 2018–2019 Chapman Law Review—without your tireless work, this issue would not have been possible.
Bitcoin, the Commerce Clause, and Bayesian Stare Decisis