Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Appellate Judges (1)
- Citizens (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Detention of Unlawful Combatants (1)
-
- District Judges (1)
- Double Jeopardy (1)
- Dual Sovereignty (1)
- Federal Judges (1)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (542 U.S. 507 (2004)) (1)
- History of Selection & Appointment of U.S. Supreme Court Justices (1)
- Islamic State (Organization) (1)
- Judicial Selection & Appointment (1)
- Legal Precedent (1)
- Legislative Bodies (1)
- Local Government (1)
- Merrick Garland (1)
- National Security (1)
- Plenary Power (Constitutional Law) (1)
- Polarization (1)
- Popular Sovereignty (1)
- Stare Decisis (1)
- State Constitutional Law (1)
- State Governments (1)
- State-Local Relations (1)
- Terrorist Organizations (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Popular Sovereignty And The Doctrine Of Plenary State Legislative Power, Nina Neff
Popular Sovereignty And The Doctrine Of Plenary State Legislative Power, Nina Neff
William & Mary Law Review Online
Unlike the federal legislature, state legislatures possess plenary power, except insofar as they are limited by state constitutions. Though state plenary power is rooted in the legal authority of popular sovereignty, the doctrine of plenary state legislative power dulls democratic power by eliminating a potential right to local self-governance and by inducing courts to underenforce constitutional limits on state legislatures. These trends do not square with our democratic intuitions or with our desire to have a sense of efficacy, energy, and power in our own ability to influence the laws of our communities. This Article suggests that the doctrine of …
Comments On Mcgahn "A Brief History Of Judicial Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration", Russell Wheeler
Comments On Mcgahn "A Brief History Of Judicial Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration", Russell Wheeler
William & Mary Law Review Online
Donald McGahn is a respected member of the Washington D.C. legal community, known especially for his expertise in election law. He served as White House counsel in the Trump administration until October 2018 and was a key player in the Trump administration’s judicial appointments process.His article is witty, sometimes revealing, but above all a description, as he sees it, of the decades-long deterioration of the process for Senate confirmation of federal judicial nominees, with some blame assigning. He also provides a few behind-the-scenes looks at Trump administration confirmation battles, and some recommendations for easing contentiousness in— or at least, speeding …
Second Guessing Double Jeopardy: The Stare Decisis Factors As Proxy Tools For Original Correctness, Justin W. Aimonetti
Second Guessing Double Jeopardy: The Stare Decisis Factors As Proxy Tools For Original Correctness, Justin W. Aimonetti
William & Mary Law Review Online
In Gamble v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 170-year-old dual-sovereignty doctrine. That doctrine permits both the federal and state governments—as “separate sovereigns”—to each prosecute a defendant for the same offense. Justice Thomas concurred with the majority opinion in Gamble, but wrote separately to reject the traditional stare decisis formulation. In particular, the factors the majority used to evaluate stare decisis, in his view, amount to nothing more than marbles placed subjectively on either side of the stare decisis balancing scale. He would have preferred, instead, an inquiry into whether the precedent was demonstrably erroneous as an original matter, …
Black Flags Behind Bars: Doe V. Mattis And Why The 2001 Aumf Does Not Justify The Detention Of U.S.-Citizen Islamic State Fighters, John A. Gurtunca
Black Flags Behind Bars: Doe V. Mattis And Why The 2001 Aumf Does Not Justify The Detention Of U.S.-Citizen Islamic State Fighters, John A. Gurtunca
William & Mary Law Review Online
This Note proposes that the current legal authority the United States relies on to detain U.S. citizens captured as enemy combatants—the 2001 AUMF—does not provide an adequate justification for the detention of Islamic State fighters who are U.S. citizens. This Note argues that despite a marriage of convenience, the Islamic State’s organizational and operational differences from al-Qaeda make it a factually distinct organization. Because the Islamic State and al-Qaeda are two different entities, the Islamic State falls outside the scope of the 2001 AUMF. Thus, the 2001 AUMF should not apply to the detention of U.S.-citizen Islamic State fighters because …