Digital Commons Network^™

Finding Effective Constraints On Executive Power: Interrogation, Detention, And Torture, Deborah N. Pearlstein

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

How Qui Tam Actions Could Fight Public Corruption, Aaron R. Petty

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that public corruption at the state and local levels is a serious problem throughout the United States. Because public corruption decreases confidence in the democratic system at all levels of government, a strong response is necessary. Due to difficulties inherent in the deterrence, detection, and prosecution of state and local corruption, innovative methods to respond to this problem are needed. The author argues that amending the federal criminal statutes most commonly used to prosecute state and local public corruption, to allow a private citizen to bring a qui tam civil action against the public official for violations …

Juvenile Competency Statutes: A Model For State Legislation, Kellie M. Johnson

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act: Ten Years Later, Pat Aufderheide

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Open Video Systems: Too Much Regulation Too Late?, Micha Botein

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Law Of Unintended Consequences, Susan Ness

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Interconnection Policy And Technological Progress, Gerald W. Brock

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

No Sight Like Hindsight: The 1996 Act And The View Ten Years Later, Donna N. Lampert

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Looking Backwards And Looking Forwards In Contemplating The Next Rewrite Of The Communications Act, Johannes M. Bauer, Steven S. Wildman

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Swallows, Sausages, And The 1996 Act, Daniel B. Phythyon

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Failure Of Competition Under The 1996 Telecommunications Act, Gene Kimmelman, Mark Cooper, Magda Herra

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rivalrous Telecommunications Networks With And Without Mandatory Sharing, Thomas W. Hazlett

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act, Jim Robbins

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Greatest Story Never Told: How The 1996 Telecommunications Act Helped To Transform Cable's Future, Brian L. Roberts

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Politics And Telecommunications, Larry Pressler

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Public Interest Perspective On The Impact Of The Broadcasting Provisions Of The 1996 Act, Angela J. Campbell

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ten Years Under The 1996 Telecommunications Act, Reed Hundt

Federal Communications Law Journal

Keynote speech delivered at the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Ten Years Later Symposium, February 6, 2006, George Washington University.

Section 202(H) Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996: Beware Of Intended Consequences, Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Harold Feld, Parul Desai

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Transformation: The 1996 Act Reshapes Radio, Christopher H. Sterling

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Endangered Species, Lassoes, And Unmet Promises, Kathleen Wallman

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Responses By The Federal Communications Commission To Worldcom's Accounting Fraud, Warren G. Lavey

Federal Communications Law Journal

WorldCom's disclosure of billions of dollars of financial fraud on June 25, 2002 challenged the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") in several major ways. The FCC proclaimed its commitment to enforce its rules to protect consumers against service discontinuance as well as the priority of rooting out corporate fraud. The FCC's rules required WorldCom to file accurate financial information and to show that it had financial and character qualifications necessary to hold FCC licenses. Despite numerous related proceedings and other actions in 2001 and early 2002, the FCC had not detected nor deterred WorldCom's fraud. After the disclosure, WorldCom continued its …

'Wi-Fi'ght Them When You Can Join Them? How The Philadelphia Compromise May Have Saved Municipally-Owned Telecommunications Services, Adam Christensen

Federal Communications Law Journal

When the Mayor of Philadelphia announced his plan to provide municipally sponsored Wi-Fi Internet access, Verizon, the incumbent telecommunications service provider organized lobbyists to block the plan. The compromise eventually struck between Pennsylvania municipalities and Verizon, which allows municipalities to offer telecommunications services after giving Verizon a right of first refusal has resulted in a certain degree of uncertainty in the future of municipally sponsored Internet access. This Note examines this compromise and argues that it represents an optimistic future for municipally sponsored telecommunications services. The Note first discusses the history of Wi-Fi technology and the development of the law …

Comment - Assuring Continuity Of Government, Sanford Levinson

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

Reply to Seth Tillman's article , Comment - Assuring Continuity of Government, 4 Pierce L. Rev. 201 (2006), available at http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol4/iss2/4

[Excerpt]”What makes Tillman’s proposal distinctive, and important, is that it presents a statutory solution to at least aspects of the problem. It is an audacious proposal well worth discussing at greater length than I have time for in preparing this brief comment. Before turning to the specifics of his proposal, though, it is worth spelling out the possible situation that underlies the concern displayed by an increasing number of thoughtful Americans about the issue of continuity in government. […] …

Model Continuity Of Congress Statute, Seth Barrett Tillman

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] "Although, the reasoning of Chadha arguably extends to actions taken pursuant to this Model Statute, the facts of any litigation arising from this Model Statute are substantially different from the facts of Chadha. Unlike Chadha, all orders, resolutions, and votes made pursuant to this Model Statute are presented. Any litigation arising under this Model Statute will permit lower courts to take a fresh look at Chadha’s bicameralism rationale apart from the presentment issues, which are not at play under the terms of this statute. "

Legislative Delegation And Two Conceptions Of The Legislative Power, Robert C. Sarvis

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] "The current federal government, with its burgeoning administrative agencies, does not embody what most Americans would recognize as the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. This is, in part, due to the Congress’s frequent practice of delegating legislative powers to the executive branch, i.e., giving administrative agencies the power to promulgate rules regulating private behavior and having the force of law. Legislative delegation has been the subject of academic, legal, and political wrangling since the early congresses and clearly calls into question whether modern practice adheres to constitutional norms. This article discusses legislative delegation in terms of some core …

Checking In On The Chesapeake: Some Questions Of Design, Jonathan Cannon

University of Richmond Law Review

The Chesapeake Bay Program ("the CBP" or "Program") has been widely celebrated as a model of collaborative management for large multijurisdictional watersheds and for ecosystem management more generally.' In an article published six years ago, I joined in the celebration.2 But recent events warrant consideration of whether restructuring of the program is called for. In this essay, I consider whether greater centralization of decisionmaking for the Bay would address recent criticisms of the Program and better protect the public interest. After evaluating two alternative forms for the Program involving greater centralization, I conclude that major restructuring is not in order. …

Why Does The Chesapeake Bay Need Litigators?, Jon A. Mueller, Joseph Tannery

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adding Fuel To The Fire: United States V. Booker And The Crack Versus Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity, Briton K. Nelson

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rapanos, Carabell, And The Isolated Man, Joel B. Eisen

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Daimlerchrysler V. Cuno: An Escape From The Dormant Commerce Clause Quagmire?, S. Mohsin Reza

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.