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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

Introducing Revised Article 9 Of The Uniform Commercial Code, John L. Mccabe, Arthur H. Travers Jan 2001

Introducing Revised Article 9 Of The Uniform Commercial Code, John L. Mccabe, Arthur H. Travers

Articles

No abstract provided.


How Democratic Are Initiatives?, Richard B. Collins Jan 2001

How Democratic Are Initiatives?, Richard B. Collins

Articles

No abstract provided.


For The Best Of Friends And For Lovers Of All Sorts, A Status Other Than Marriage (Symposium: Unmarried Partners And The Legacy Of Marvin V. Marvin)" , David L. Chambers Jan 2001

For The Best Of Friends And For Lovers Of All Sorts, A Status Other Than Marriage (Symposium: Unmarried Partners And The Legacy Of Marvin V. Marvin)" , David L. Chambers

Articles

American governments have recently begun to experiment with new familial statuses for gay male and lesbian couples, who have demanded the right to marry but have been appeased with more modest forms of recognition.4 What I propose here is quite different. It is a status for people who have close bonds but do not want to be married to each other. I call this status "designated friends." Once registered, "designated friends" would obtain a limited number of privileges and undertake a limited number of responsibilities relating to the care for the other when ill or incapacitated or upon death ...


The U.S. Treasury's Subpart F Report: Plus Ça Change, Plus C'Est La Même Chose?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah Jan 2001

The U.S. Treasury's Subpart F Report: Plus Ça Change, Plus C'Est La Même Chose?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

On 29 December 2000, the U.S. Treasury Department released its long-awaited study of Subpart F, entitled “The Deferral of Income Earned through U.S. Controlled Foreign Corporations." This study was commenced in the aftermath of the controversy that ensued from the issuance and subsequent withdrawal of Notice 98-11. The study was originally expected to be issued in 1999 in response to the report published that year by the National Foreign Trade Council, which advocated significant changes in Subpart F. The Treasury Study’s delayed issuance at the end of the Clinton Administration means that it only has (at best ...


Interpretive Communities: The Missing Element In Statutory Interpretation, William S. Blatt Jan 2001

Interpretive Communities: The Missing Element In Statutory Interpretation, William S. Blatt

Articles

No abstract provided.


Federalism, Preclearance, And The Rehnquist Court, Ellen D. Katz Jan 2001

Federalism, Preclearance, And The Rehnquist Court, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Lopez v. Monterey County is an odd decision. Justice O'Connor's majority opinion easily upholds the constitutionality of a broad construction of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in language reminiscent of the Warren Court. Acknowledging the "substantial 'federalism costs" resulting from the VRA's "federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking," Lopez recognizes that the Reconstruction Amendments "contemplate" this encroachment into realms "traditionally reserved to the States." Justice O'Connor affirms as constitutionally permissible the infringement that the section 5 preclearance process "by its nature" effects on state sovereignty, and applies section 5 ...


From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar Jan 2001

From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar

Articles

Once the Court granted [certiorari in Dickerson] court-watchers knew the hour had come. At long last the Court would have to either repudiate Miranda, repudiate the prophylactic-rule cases [the cases viewing Miranda's requirements as not rights protected by the Constitution, but merely "prophylactic rules"] or offer some ingenious reconciliation of the two lines of precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, doesn't "have to" do anything, as the decision in Dickerson once again reminds us.