Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Defensively Invoking Treaties In American Courts--Jurisdictional Challenges Under The U.N. Drug Trafficking Convention By Foreign Defendants Kidnapped Abroad By U.S. Agents, Thomas Michael Mcdonnell
Defensively Invoking Treaties In American Courts--Jurisdictional Challenges Under The U.N. Drug Trafficking Convention By Foreign Defendants Kidnapped Abroad By U.S. Agents, Thomas Michael Mcdonnell
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This Article unravels the non-self-executing treaty doctrine, examines the invocation of a treaty as a defense to governmental action, and develops a test for when an individual (rather than a government) may assert a treaty defensively in state or federal courts. Lastly, this Article applies this test to state-sponsored kidnapping and the U.N. Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The parties to this treaty, which was sponsored by the United States, barred one country's law enforcement agents from operating without permission on another country's soil and rejected a provision requiring a country to extradite its own …
The Term Limits Case, Bennett L. Gershman
The Term Limits Case, Bennett L. Gershman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In U.S. Term Limits, the Court reviewed an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution, adopted in 1992, that made a candidate for the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives ineligible to have his or her name placed on the ballot for national election if that person had previously been elected to three or more terms as a member of the House, or two or more terms as a member of the Senate. Following a taxpayer's complaint seeking declaratory relief, the state circuit court held that this amendment violated the Qualifications Clauses in Article I, sections 2 and 3, of the U.S. …
Takings And Property Rights Legislation, John R. Nolon
Takings And Property Rights Legislation, John R. Nolon
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Over the years, regulatory takings case law has supported land use regulations by cloaking them with a presumption of validity and placing a heavy burden on their challengers of proving either that the regulation fails to substantially advance a legitimate public purpose or that it deprives the owner of all economically beneficial use of the land. Insulated in this way, regulators, on occasion, have transgressed the boundaries of fundamental fairness.
The Promise Of State Constitutionalism: Can It Be Fulfilled In Shef V. O'Neill?, Gayl S. Westerman
The Promise Of State Constitutionalism: Can It Be Fulfilled In Shef V. O'Neill?, Gayl S. Westerman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This Article reflects on the anomaly of the superior court's decision in Sheff in light of this recent history and recommends that the Connecticut Supreme Court use an alternative, analytical framework based on the Connecticut Constitution to decide the Sheff appeal. This independent approach is equally available to all state courts seeking to resolve fundamental issues under their own constitutions. Only by speaking in a clear, state voice can state courts balance the constitutional vision of the federal courts and fulfill the promise of the state constitutional law movement.
Squaring Affirmative Action Admissions Policies With Federal Judicial Guidelines: A Model For The Twenty-First Century, Leslie Y. Garfield
Squaring Affirmative Action Admissions Policies With Federal Judicial Guidelines: A Model For The Twenty-First Century, Leslie Y. Garfield
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This article will highlight the legal limitations law schools confront when adopting diversity admission policies in light of the new judicial climate that disfavors considering non-traditional race criteria in the admission decision process. Part I highlights the difficulty law schools face when trying to admit a fully diverse class under the traditional application process. Part II discusses the judicial response to voluntary diversity admission policies and other race-based preference policies and defines the appropriate standard for court review. Part III proposes a model diversity admission policy. Part IV analyzes this model policy under the Court's strict scrutiny test.