Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Politics (3)
- Baker v. State (2)
- Civil Rights (2)
- Common Benefits Clause (2)
- Constitutional jurisprudence (2)
-
- Constitutional scholarship (2)
- Discrimination (2)
- Doctor-patient relationship (2)
- Extremism (2)
- Health Law and Policy (2)
- Islam (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Law school curriculum (2)
- Legal Analysis and Writing (2)
- Life-prolonging medical treatment (2)
- Medical costs (2)
- Medical law and procedure (2)
- New Judicial Federalism (2)
- Patient competency (2)
- Saikewicz decision (2)
- Same-sex marriage (2)
- State constitutional law (2)
- Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (2)
- Terminal illness (2)
- Vermont (2)
- Citizenship (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Constitutional Rights (1)
- Courts (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Civil Rights and Discrimination
Power, Economics And The 'Islamic Terrorism' Narrative, Alev Dudek
Power, Economics And The 'Islamic Terrorism' Narrative, Alev Dudek
Alev Dudek
All Americans Not Equal: Mistrust And Discrimination Against Naturalized Citizens In The U.S., Alev Dudek
All Americans Not Equal: Mistrust And Discrimination Against Naturalized Citizens In The U.S., Alev Dudek
Alev Dudek
War Against Muslims Post 9/11?, Alev Dudek
War Against Muslims Post 9/11?, Alev Dudek
Alev Dudek
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Charles H. Baron
In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state constitution’s Common Benefits Clause prohibits the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage. Baker has been praised by constitutional scholars as a prototypical example of the New Judicial Federalism. The authors agree, asserting that the decision sets a standard for constitutional discourse by dint of the manner in which each of the opinions connects and responds to the others, pulls together arguments from other state and federal constitutional authorities, and provides a clear basis for subsequent development of constitutional principle. This Article explores …
Medical Paternalism And The Rule Of Law: A Reply To Dr. Relman, Charles Baron
Medical Paternalism And The Rule Of Law: A Reply To Dr. Relman, Charles Baron
Charles H. Baron
In this Article, Professor Baron challenges the position taken recently by Dr. Arnold Relman in this journal that the 1977 Saikewicz decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was incorrect in calling for routine judicial resolution of decisions whether to provide life-prolonging treatment to terminally ill incompetent patients. First, Professor Baron argues that Dr. Relman's position that doctors should make such decisions is based upon an outmoded, paternalistic view of the doctor-patient relationship. Second, he points out the importance of guaranteeing to such decisions the special qualities of process which characterize decision making by courts and which are not …
Respectable Queerness, Yuvraj Joshi
Respectable Queerness, Yuvraj Joshi
Yuvraj Joshi
This Article proposes a new theoretical framework to understand public recognition of gay people and relationships. This framework—called “respectable queerness”—suggests that public recognition of gay people and relationships is contingent upon their acquiring a respectable social identity that is actually constituted by public performances of respectability and by privately queer practices. The challenges posed by such recognition include dissonance between one’s public and private selves and fuelling moralism and entrenching divisions between different queer constituencies.
The Case For Repeal Of India's Sodomy Law, Yuvraj Joshi
The Case For Repeal Of India's Sodomy Law, Yuvraj Joshi
Yuvraj Joshi
This Article surveys some of the arguments for and against the repeal of India’s sodomy law. The first part analyses s.377 of the Indian Penal Code and considers its consequences for India's gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, hijra and kothi persons. The second part provides an overview of the various theoretical and political positions taken in the sodomy law debate. The third part examines the rights-based arguments that have been made in support of repealing or reading down s.377, and the feminist and queer critiques of these arguments. The fourth part considers the arguments against the repeal that have been put …
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Charles H. Baron
In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state constitution’s Common Benefits Clause prohibits the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage. Baker has been praised by constitutional scholars as a prototypical example of the New Judicial Federalism. The authors agree, asserting that the decision sets a standard for constitutional discourse by dint of the manner in which each of the opinions connects and responds to the others, pulls together arguments from other state and federal constitutional authorities, and provides a clear basis for subsequent development of constitutional principle. This Article explores …
Medical Paternalism And The Rule Of Law: A Reply To Dr. Relman, Charles Baron
Medical Paternalism And The Rule Of Law: A Reply To Dr. Relman, Charles Baron
Charles H. Baron
In this Article, Professor Baron challenges the position taken recently by Dr. Arnold Relman in this journal that the 1977 Saikewicz decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was incorrect in calling for routine judicial resolution of decisions whether to provide life-prolonging treatment to terminally ill incompetent patients. First, Professor Baron argues that Dr. Relman's position that doctors should make such decisions is based upon an outmoded, paternalistic view of the doctor-patient relationship. Second, he points out the importance of guaranteeing to such decisions the special qualities of process which characterize decision making by courts and which are not …