Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Supreme Court, The Florida Vote, And Equal Protection, Larry Alexander
The Supreme Court, The Florida Vote, And Equal Protection, Larry Alexander
San Diego Law Review
The Supreme Court majority in Bush v. Gore1 has taken a lot of flak for its ruling that the Florida count of undervotes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Commentators, and not only those on the left, have labeled the Court’s reasoning as without basis in precedent, weak in its logic, and breathtakingly sweeping in its implications.2 For those inclined to suspect the justices of naked partisanship, the equal protection argument did nothing to allay those suspicions.
It is argued in this Essay, however, that the case for an equal protection violation is supported both by precedent …
The Wrong Line Between Freedom And Restraint: The Unreality, Obscurity, And Hcivility Of The Fourth Amendment Consensual Encounter Doctrine, Daniel J. Steinbock
The Wrong Line Between Freedom And Restraint: The Unreality, Obscurity, And Hcivility Of The Fourth Amendment Consensual Encounter Doctrine, Daniel J. Steinbock
San Diego Law Review
restraint is clearly one of the most important, and one the law should be most anxious to get right. On the one side lies freedom to move around physically-the essence of what most people mean by "liberty." While not explicitly defined in the Constitution, this liberty is protected by several of its provisions: the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,' the right to habeas corpus, the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery, and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures. Together they ensure against interference with personal freedom of movement in the form of bondage, incarceration, civil confinement, …
David Versus Goliath: A Law School Debate About Bush V. Gore, H. Lee Sarokin
David Versus Goliath: A Law School Debate About Bush V. Gore, H. Lee Sarokin
San Diego Law Review
For the first time in America’s history, the Supreme Court has, in effect, selected the President of the United States. The case was analogous to a claim that a jury verdict was tainted. The Court, in this instance, knew who would win if the verdict was permitted to stand, and who was likely to win if the jury was permitted to continue its deliberations. It was this knowledge that made the decision so sensitive and challenged the integrity and the role of the Court so profoundly.