Law Commons^™

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Waters Of The United States: Theory, Practice And Integrity At The Supreme Court, Jamison E. Colburn

ExpressO

In the Supreme Court's two wetlands cases this Term, a question of statutory interpretation divided the justices sharply, in part because so much rides on the particular statutory provision at issue. The provision, a cryptic definition within the Clean Water Act (CWA), has now provided three separate occasions at the Court where the justices have confronted (1) the Chevron doctrine and the Court’s own ambivalence toward it, and (2) the CWA's enormous project of restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In this essay, I argue that the way the Court went about resolving its differences …

Water Reallocation By Settlement: Who Wins, Who Loses, Who Pays?, Rosalind H. Bark

ExpressO

The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA) is the current standard for what a comprehensive, negotiated settlement can achieve in terms of water rights reallocation, water resource management, and water supply reliability enhancement. This note reviews the flows of money and water specified in Titles I and II of the AWSA to identify the signatory and non-signatory parties that benefit from the settlement and the allocation of costs between the various parties to the agreement. Opportunity costs are also considered. Innovative elements of the agreement are discussed particularly those that improve water supply reliability for the Gila River Indian Community …

Finding A Water Ethic Through Religion, Aesthetics, Conflicts & The Law, Chad A. West

ExpressO

Water is important to humans for household uses, manufacturing, agriculture, ecological preservation, recreation, and many other interests. Legislators developing water policies often cannot reconcile conflicting water interests because they do not understand their regions’ water ethics. Ethics philosophers and legal analysts have performed extensive studies on environmental ethics and human values. These same experts, however, have neglected to separate water ethics from environmental ethics. In this article, I do not speculate on what the ideal water ethic should be. Instead, I use religion, aesthetics, water conflicts, and the law to exhibit that no single water ethic exists. Each continent, country, …

Sovereignty Of Aves Island: An Argument Against Standardized, Compulsory Arbitration, Michael S. Garrison

ExpressO

States engaging in preemptive dispute resolution frequently call upon adjudicative or diplomatic means to resolve territorial boundary disputes and comply with international law. In light of reduced efficacy of such dispute resolution mechanisms, however, some propose that all states should engage in compulsory, standardized arbitration subject to International Court of Justice (“I.C.J.”) review to resolve their boundary disputes. Although arbitration is an effective method of international dispute resolution in certain cases, standardized arbitration will not effectively resolve all boundary disputes between neighbor states.

This Comment argues against the proposition that the United Nations (“U.N.”) implement a standardized arbitration mechanism and …

Zoning And Eminent Domain Under The New Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

Recently the Supreme Court has made it clearer that minimum scrutiny is a factual analysis. Whether in any government action there is a rational relation to a legitimate interest is a matter of determining whether there is a policy maintaining important facts. This has come about in the Court’s emerging emphasis on developing fact-based criteria for determining government purpose. Thus, those who want to affect zoning and eminent domain outcomes should look to what the Court sees as important facts, and whether government action is maintaining those facts with its proposed land use or eminent domain action.

Finding New Constitutional Rights Through The Supreme Court’S Evolving “Government Purpose” Test Under Minimum Scrutiny, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

By now we all are familiar with the litany of cases which refused to find elevated scrutiny for so-called “affirmative” or “social” rights such as education, welfare or housing: Lindsey v. Normet, San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, Dandridge v. Williams, DeShaney v. Winnebago County. There didn’t seem to be anything in minimum scrutiny which could protect such facts as education or housing, from government action. However, unobtrusively and over the years, the Supreme Court has clarified and articulated one aspect of minimum scrutiny which holds promise for vindicating facts. You will recall that under minimum scrutiny government’s action is …