Law Commons^™

United States Implementation Of The International Criminal Court: Towards The Federalism Of Free Nations, Lauren F. Redman

Lauren F Redman

The political winds are changing, and a more liberal United States government may very well be receptive to ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The nature and scope of international law are also changing. Individuals are sharing responsibility with states for grave breaches of international law, and globalization has resulted in a marked increase in international tribunals deciding disputes affecting individual interests. Despite these trends, Americans have been wary of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Federal courts principles borrowed from the legal process school can and should be implemented to govern relations between ICC and domestic …

Privatizing Bans On Abortion: Eviscerating Constitutional Rights Through Tort Remedies, Maya Manian

Maya Manian

State governments have devised a new means to evade the Constitution. Their new means is to enact tort statutes that, in effect, ban constitutionally protected conduct. In particular, some states have made the provision of an abortion a tort for which there can be no defense and no cap on the amount of liability. These states have made performing an abortion essentially illegal. Yet, because tort statutes are enforced through private litigation, rather than public prosecution, a number of courts have held that they lack jurisdiction to review these laws. Federal courts have concluded that standing doctrine and state sovereign …

Wartime Process: A Dialogue On Congressional Power To Remove Issues From The Federal Courts, John C. Yoo, Jesse Choper

John C Yoo

Many have long debated whether Congress may strip the federal courts completely of jurisdiction over certain classes of cases. Until the last few years, these debates met the very definition of academic. Aside from two statutes, Congress had never engaged in clear removal of cases from the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts. That changed with the Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush, which extended the federal writ of habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants detained at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Naval Station. In response to Rasul, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), which forbade any …

Wartime Process: A Dialogue On Congressional Power To Remove Issues From The Federal Courts, John C. Yoo, Jesse Choper

Jesse H Choper

Many have long debated whether Congress may strip the federal courts completely of jurisdiction over certain classes of cases. Until the last few years, these debates met the very definition of academic. Aside from two statutes, Congress had never engaged in clear removal of cases from the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts. That changed with the Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush, which extended the federal writ of habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants detained at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Naval Station. In response to Rasul, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), which forbade any …