This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

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?

        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 ...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)