Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (2)
- Criminal procedure (2)
- Affirmative action (1)
- Alternative dispute resolution (1)
- American Scholarship (1)
-
- Animal law (1)
- Animal welfare (1)
- Bail (1)
- Bakke (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- California (1)
- Cannabis (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Commerce (1)
- Common good (1)
- Communitarianism (1)
- Congressional inaction (1)
- Constitutional history (1)
- Dormant Commerce Clause (1)
- Dormant commerce clause (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Excessive Fines Clause (1)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fifth amendment (1)
- Filipina (1)
- Filipino (1)
- Gratz (1)
- Grutter (1)
- Impeachment (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Legalization Without Disruption: Why Congress Should Let States Restrict Interstate Commerce In Marijuana, Scott Bloomberg, Robert A. Mikos
Legalization Without Disruption: Why Congress Should Let States Restrict Interstate Commerce In Marijuana, Scott Bloomberg, Robert A. Mikos
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the past twenty-five years, states have developed elaborate regulatory systems to govern lawful marijuana markets. In designing these systems, states have assumed that the Dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”) does not apply; Congress, after all, has banned all commerce in marijuana. However, the states’ reprieve from the doctrine may soon come to an end. Congress is on the verge of legalizing marijuana federally, and once it does, it will unleash the DCC, with dire consequences for the states and the markets they now regulate. This Article serves as a wake-up call. It provides the most extensive analysis to date of …
A Reaction To Systemic Inaction: Breaking The Congressional Logjam Where It Counts, Nicholas W. Archibald
A Reaction To Systemic Inaction: Breaking The Congressional Logjam Where It Counts, Nicholas W. Archibald
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
William Marshall proposed that congressional inaction threatening “the ability of the government to function” should be “subject to constitutional scrutiny.” This article is a response to Marshall’s proposal and offers a potential solution based on alternative dispute resolution rather than the courts. When faced with seemingly insurmountable differences, Congress must look to alternative dispute resolution to reach a breakthrough on critical issues. This paper proposes the creation of a Mediation Office to assist Congress in coming to these breakthroughs. This mechanism could also possibly intervene when the issue is between Congress and the President. Part II of this article will …
The Case For A Liberal Communitarian Jurisprudence, Amitai Etzioni
The Case For A Liberal Communitarian Jurisprudence, Amitai Etzioni
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
This article seeks to show that courts face difficulties without a principled, constitutional anchoring for the conception of the common good. Courts could divine the common good from the penumbra of the Fourth Amendment in the same way the Supreme Court created a right to privacy. In addition to creating a “common good” constitutional principle, the judicial branch should establish criteria to determine when this principle should take precedence over individual rights expressly preserved in the Constitution.
Is Misdemeanor Cash Bail An Unconstitutional Excessive Fine?, Barnett J. Harris
Is Misdemeanor Cash Bail An Unconstitutional Excessive Fine?, Barnett J. Harris
Pepperdine Law Review
The Excessive Fines Clause is one of the least developed clauses pertaining to criminal procedure in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has only interpreted the Clause a few times in its entire history. Yet, on any given day, hundreds of thousands of people languish in jails without having been convicted of anything, because most of these people are unable to meet the bail amount a judge sets. This Essay examines the surprisingly under-explored relationship between misdemeanor cash bail & pretrial detention and the Excessive Fines and Excessive Bail Clauses of the Eighth Amendment, using the Supreme …
The United States Of California: Ninth Circuit Tips The Dormant Commerce Clause Scales In Favor Of The Golden State's Animal Welfare Legislation, Tanner Hendershot
The United States Of California: Ninth Circuit Tips The Dormant Commerce Clause Scales In Favor Of The Golden State's Animal Welfare Legislation, Tanner Hendershot
Pepperdine Law Review
In November 2018, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 12, the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act. This law requires in-state and out-of-state farmers to provide additional living space for egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and calves raised for veal by 2022 if the farmers wish to continue doing business within the state. In response, North American Meat Institute (NAMI), whose members account for approximately 95% of the country’s output of various meat products, filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction against Proposition 12’s enforcement. NAMI contended Proposition 12 violated the Dormant Commerce Clause, a legal doctrine …
Jury Nullification As A Spectrum, Richard Lorren Jolly
Jury Nullification As A Spectrum, Richard Lorren Jolly
Pepperdine Law Review
Jury nullification traditionally refers to the jury’s power to deliver a verdict that is deliberately contrary to the law’s clearly dictated outcome. A spirited scholarship is built around this conception, with some painting nullification as democratic and others as anarchic. But this debate is largely unmoored from experience. In practice, courts have formally eliminated the jury’s authority to review the law and have established procedures that make it easier to prevent and overturn seemingly nullificatory verdicts. Thus, outside of a jury’s verdict acquitting a criminal defendant, jury nullification as traditionally understood does not exist. In no other context is a …
Not White Enough, Not Black Enough: Reimagining Affirmative Action Jurisprudence In Law School Admissions Through A Filipino-American Paradigm, Joseph D. G. Castro
Not White Enough, Not Black Enough: Reimagining Affirmative Action Jurisprudence In Law School Admissions Through A Filipino-American Paradigm, Joseph D. G. Castro
Pepperdine Law Review
Writing the majority opinion upholding the use of racial preferences in law school admissions in 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor anticipated that racial preferences would no longer be necessary in twenty-five years. On the contrary, 2021 has seen the astronomic rise of critical race theory, the popularity of race-driven “diversity” initiatives in higher education, and the continued surge of identity politics in the mainstream. So much has been written on affirmative action—what else could this Comment add to the conversation? Analyzing the Court’s application of strict scrutiny through a Filipino- American paradigm, this Comment ultimately concludes that affirmative action in …
Impartial Justice: Restoring Integrity To Impeachment Trials, Justin D. Rattey
Impartial Justice: Restoring Integrity To Impeachment Trials, Justin D. Rattey
Pepperdine Law Review
In recent decades, we have witnessed the diminution of the impeachment process by various actors—especially political parties. But the Founders envisioned a vastly different process, one that was insulated from partisanship. In Alexander Hamilton’s words, impeachment trials were assigned to the Senate because the Senate is “a tribunal sufficiently dignified [and] sufficiently independent.” Examples from the most recent impeachment trials of President Donald J. Trump reflect the Senate’s loss of dignity and independence, with Senator McConnell pledging to work with the White House throughout the first impeachment process and senators from both parties conceding that they made up their minds …