Constitutional Law
Dec. 28, 2002
Justices Remain Consistent, But Chemerinsky Does Not
Forum Column - By Arthur B. Mark III - In his Forum piece of Nov. 22 ("States, Not U.S., Should Have Right to Regulate Doctors"), professor Erwin Chemerinsky states: "Throughout American history, it has been for the states, not the federal government, to regulate doctors and other professionals. The [9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] ruling [in Conant v. Walters , 309 F.3d 629 (2002)] is thus an important reaffirmation of basic federalism principles in limiting the ability of the federal government to intimidate and punish doctors for discussing medical care options with their patients." Is this the same Chemerinsky who has criticized the court's federalism jurisprudence of the last 10 years as improper?
By Arthur B. Mark III
In his Forum piece of Nov. 22 ("States, Not U.S., Should Have Right to Regulate Doctors"), professor Erwin Chemerinsky states: "Throughout American history, it ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In