August 3, 2004
The PROTECT Act strikes back?
I have just received a full draft of a very interesting article that is now scheduled to run in the October 2004 issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. In the draft article you can download here, Villanova law professor and FSR Editor Steve Chanenson argues that Congress's meddling with the federal guidelines through the PROTECT Act (and particularly its infamous Feeney Amendment) may, after Blakely, undermine Congress's apparent interest in preserving the existing guidelines.
Here's a taste of what Professor Chanenson has to say (paraphrased from our exchanges about the piece):
When Congress — with the support of DOJ — passed the PROTECT Act last year, it was trying to further control the USSC and federal sentencing generally. With reduced departure grounds, Congressionally-revised Guidelines, and a constrained Commission potentially devoid of judges, Congress seemed to have achieved its goal, at least in the short run. However, as a factual matter, the PROTECT Act blurs the administrative versus legislative guideline distinction that DOJ and the USSC now suggest may save the federal guidelines from Blakely's reach. Thus, through the PROTECT Act, Congress and the Department may find themselves hoist on their own petard.
August 3, 2004 at 05:58 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The PROTECT Act strikes back?:
However, as a factual matter, the PROTECT Act blurs the administrative versus legislative guideline distinction that DOJ and the USSC now suggest may save the federal guidelines from Blakely's reach.
Posted by: Robe de Soirée 2013 | Dec 14, 2012 1:43:51 AM