Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Communication (1)
- Congress (1)
- Congressional Review Act (1)
- Crime control (1)
- Criminology (1)
-
- DACA (1)
- DAPA (1)
- Due process (1)
- Evidentiary exclusion (1)
- Executive action on immigration (1)
- Fruit of the poisonous tree (1)
- Ideograph (1)
- Law (1)
- Legislative process in the U.S. Senate (1)
- McGee (1)
- Packer (1)
- Rhetoric (1)
- Rhetorical controversy (1)
- Senate rules & procedures (1)
- Supermajority cloture requirement (1)
- Travel Ban (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Deliberation's Demise: The Rise Of One-Party Rule In The Senate, Charles Tiefer, Kathleen Clark
Deliberation's Demise: The Rise Of One-Party Rule In The Senate, Charles Tiefer, Kathleen Clark
Roger Williams University Law Review
Much of the recent legal scholarship on the Senate expresses concern about gridlock, which was caused in part by the Senate’s supermajority requirement to pass legislation and confirm presidential nominees. This scholarship exalted the value of procedural changes permitting the majority party to push through legislation and confirmations, and failed to appreciate salutary aspects of the supermajority requirement: that it provided a key structural support for stability and balance in governance. The Senate changed its rules in order to address the problem of partisan gridlock, and now a party with a bare majority is able to force through much of …
Bold Executive Action And False Equivalence, Stephen H. Legomsky
Bold Executive Action And False Equivalence, Stephen H. Legomsky
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Crime Control, Due Process, & Evidentiary Exclusion: When Exceptions Become The Rule, Elizabeth H. Kaylor
Crime Control, Due Process, & Evidentiary Exclusion: When Exceptions Become The Rule, Elizabeth H. Kaylor
Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association
This paper uses the dichotomy between Herbert Packer’s (1968) two models of criminal justice advocacy – “crime control” and “due process” – as a rhetorical paradigm for understanding policy debate about the exclusion of relevant evidence at trial. Understanding the opposition between crime control and due process advocates as a rhetorical controversy, in which commonly-used ideographs camouflage dramatically different constructions of the concepts at stake, helps to illuminate the way each side mobilizes public support for their narrative of doing . While both the exclusionary rule (which prohibits the use of illegally-obtained evidence in criminal cases) and the “fruit of …