Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Constitutional Law

Washington Law Review

Journal

1992

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

A Frequent Recurrence To Fundamental Principles: Individual Rights, Free Government, And The Washington State Constitution, Brian Snure Jul 1992

A Frequent Recurrence To Fundamental Principles: Individual Rights, Free Government, And The Washington State Constitution, Brian Snure

Washington Law Review

Article 1, section 32, of the Washington State Constitution provides for a "recurrence to fundamental principles" as a means of protecting individual rights and free government. Since the adoption of the constitution in 1889, section 32 has been used infrequently by Washington's legal community. This Comment examines the role of section 32 in constitutional analysis by distilling four fundamental principles from the structure of the state constitution and the historical and legal environment existing in 1889. From these principles, this Comment concludes that the framers of the Washington Constitution intended that section 32 be used to expand the scope of …


Mandatory Life Sentence Without Parole Found Constitutionally Permissble For Cocaine Possession—Harmelin V. Michigan, 111 S. Ct. 2680 (1991), Andrew H. Mun Jul 1992

Mandatory Life Sentence Without Parole Found Constitutionally Permissble For Cocaine Possession—Harmelin V. Michigan, 111 S. Ct. 2680 (1991), Andrew H. Mun

Washington Law Review

In Harmelin v. Michigan, the United States Supreme Court held (5-4) that a legislatively-mandated life sentence without parole for possession of 672.5 grams of cocaine did not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. In reaching the result, two Justices abrogated the proportionality principle in the Eighth Amendment and three Justices abridged the proportionality standard promulgated in Solem v. Helm. This Note examines the Harmelin decision and suggests that the Court does not adequately justify abrogating or limiting the Solem proportionality standard. This Note recommends application of the Solem proportionality standard and concludes that imposition of …


Congressional Term Limits: Unconstitutional By Initiative, Brendan Barnicle Apr 1992

Congressional Term Limits: Unconstitutional By Initiative, Brendan Barnicle

Washington Law Review

Numerous states are considering voters' initiatives limiting the terms of their congressional delegations. This Comment analyzes the constitutionality of these measures and concludes that congressional term limits are unconstitutional when enacted through voters' initiatives, but may be properly enacted through a federal constitutional amendment. Moreover, imposing term limits at all, regardless of their implementation, appears inconsistent with original intent of the Constitution's framers. Finally, previous amendments used to implement changes to the electoral process, and judicial decisions on such proposed changes, suggest that changes such as term limits must be enacted by constitutional amendment.