Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Direct Democracy And Hastily Enacted Statutes, John C. Nagle
Direct Democracy And Hastily Enacted Statutes, John C. Nagle
Journal Articles
Phil Frickey qualifies as the leading explorer of the borderline between statutory interpretation and constitutional law. Frickey explores ways to mediate the borderline between statutory interpretation and constitutional adjudication in the context of direct democracy. His is an enormously helpful attempt to reconcile the constitutional issues discussed by Julian Eule and the statutory interpretation issues discussed by Jane Schacter. I agree with many of Frickey's suggestions. Indeed, I will suggest some additional devices that can perform the same role. But I wonder whether Frickey has proved more than he set out to accomplish. The problems of direct democracy are special, …
Cooperating With The Prosecutor: How Many Motions Does It Take To Secure A Sentence That Is Less Than The Mandatory Minimum Provided By Statute?, Jimmy Gurule
Journal Articles
A preview of Melendez v. United States, a 1996 Supreme Court case in which a convicted cocaine dealer appealed his mandatory 10 year sentence under the federal statutes on the grounds that he had cooperated with the prosecutor. While the United States Congress has authorized courts to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum set by the statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for defendants who provide substantial cooperation with the prosecution, courts can only do so at the request of the prosecutor. At issue in this case, where the prosecutor requested a sentence lower than the Guidelines minimum but not …
The Double Jeopardy Dilemma: Does Criminal Prosecution And Civil Forfeiture In Separate Proceedings Violate The Double Jeopardy Clause?, Jimmy Gurule
Journal Articles
A preview of two 1996 Supreme Court cases. In the first case, US v. Ursery, a convicted narcotics dealer filed a motion to dismiss his criminal sentence on the grounds that it had violated the double jeopardy clause because he had already received a civil forfeiture judgment for the same crime. The second case, US v. $405,089.23, involves a similar situation, with a convicted felon filing a motion to dismiss his civil forfeiture case on the grounds that he had received a criminal sentence for the same crime earlier. The article argues that the two cases are significant because the …
How To Count To Fifteen: Determining The Jurisdictional Scope Of Title Vii: An Analysis Of Walters V. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises Inc., Barbara J. Fick
How To Count To Fifteen: Determining The Jurisdictional Scope Of Title Vii: An Analysis Of Walters V. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises Inc., Barbara J. Fick
Journal Articles
This article previews the Supreme Court case Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., 519 U.S. 202 (1997). The author expected the Court to consider how the number of employees of a particular employer should be counted for for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Will The Supreme Court Sound The Death Knell For Political Patronage? An Analysis Of O'Hare Truck Services, Inc. V. City Of Northlake, Barbara J. Fick
Will The Supreme Court Sound The Death Knell For Political Patronage? An Analysis Of O'Hare Truck Services, Inc. V. City Of Northlake, Barbara J. Fick
Journal Articles
This article previews the Supreme Court case O'Hare v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996). The author expected the Court to analyze whether political patronage infringes on First Amendment rights.
Corrections Day, John Copeland Nagle
Corrections Day, John Copeland Nagle
Journal Articles
In July 1995, the House of Representatives established a Corrections Day procedure for fixing statutory mistakes. This article traces the history of the corrections day idea, beginning with suggestions offered by Justices Cardozo and Ginsburg many years apart. The article also recounts the early applications of Correction Day by the House. This article describes the problem of statutory mistakes: what they are, and who makes them. It explains that statutory mistakes do exist, regardless of how one defines mistake. Congress, agencies, and the courts all make mistakes, though the responsibility for them ultimately resides with Congress, the author of the …