Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment (8)
- Freedom of religion (4)
- Constitutional law (3)
- Establishment clause (3)
- Comity (2)
-
- Contract law (2)
- Courts (2)
- Due process (2)
- Egalitarianism (2)
- Equality (2)
- Foreign law (2)
- Free Exercise (2)
- Freedom of association (2)
- Freedom of speech (2)
- National security (2)
- Religious belief (2)
- Religious expression (2)
- Rise & Decline of American Religious Freedom (2)
- Secularism (2)
- Special protection (2)
- Steven D. Smith (2)
- Abortion (1)
- Abraham Lincoln (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Affordable Care Act (1)
- Alternative dispute resolution (1)
- Amnesty International (1)
- Arbitration (1)
- Article IV (1)
- Church & State (1)
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Constitutional Law
Too Much Collateral Damage; Fatca: The Well-Intentioned, Yet Misguided And Unconstitutional, Tax Law, Zac Delap
Too Much Collateral Damage; Fatca: The Well-Intentioned, Yet Misguided And Unconstitutional, Tax Law, Zac Delap
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
This paper will examine FATCA in five parts: beginning with an introduction in Part I, Part II will provide the pertinent background that gave rise to the law, Part III will present the essential elements of FATCA, Part IV will offer pertinent liberty and constitutional arguments against FATCA, and Part V will analyze each argument's possibility of succeeding.
Standing And Covert Surveillance, Christopher Slobogin
Standing And Covert Surveillance, Christopher Slobogin
Pepperdine Law Review
This Article describes and analyzes standing doctrine as it applies to covert government surveillance, focusing on practices thought to be conducted by the National Security Agency. Primarily because of its desire to avoid judicial incursions into the political process, the Supreme Court has construed its standing doctrine in a way that makes challenges to covert surveillance very difficult. Properly understood, however, such challenges do not call for judicial trenching on the power of the legislative and executive branches. Instead, they ask the courts to ensure that the political branches function properly. This political process theory of standing can rejuvenate the …
The Admissibility Of Confessions Compelled By Foreign Coercion: A Compelling Question Of Values In An Era Of Increasing International Criminal Cooperation, Geoffrey S. Corn, Kevin Cieply
The Admissibility Of Confessions Compelled By Foreign Coercion: A Compelling Question Of Values In An Era Of Increasing International Criminal Cooperation, Geoffrey S. Corn, Kevin Cieply
Pepperdine Law Review
This Article proceeds on a simple and clear premise: a confession extracted by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment should never be admitted into evidence in a U.S. criminal trial. Whether accomplished through extending the Due Process or Self-Incrimination based exclusionary rules to foreign official coercion, or by legislative action, such exclusion is necessary to align evidentiary practice regarding confessions procured by foreign agents with our nation's fundamental values as reflected in the Fifth Amendment and our ratification of the CAT. This outcome is not incompatible with Connelly. Rather, this Article explores the limits of the Court's language in …
Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa: Balancing National Security And Individuals' Privacy, Kristen Choi
Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa: Balancing National Security And Individuals' Privacy, Kristen Choi
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
No abstract provided.
Guaranteeing Republics To The Confederate States: A Guarantee Clause Justification For Lincoln’S Response To Civil War, Michael Morea
Guaranteeing Republics To The Confederate States: A Guarantee Clause Justification For Lincoln’S Response To Civil War, Michael Morea
Pepperdine Law Review
There has been substantial debate over the constitutionality of Lincoln’s response to secession and his role as executive during the Civil War. While many historians and legal experts accept the theory that Lincoln, as president, was vested by Article II with power to act decisively in suppressing secession in an effort to preserve the Union, there is branch of libertarian thought that remains unconvinced that his tactics were constitutional. For example, three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, in an interview with “Meet the Press,” stated that Lincoln should not have gone to war, arguing that Lincoln’s actions were motivated by the …
“Islamic Law” In Us Courts: Judicial Jihad Or Constitutional Imperative?, Faisal Kutty
“Islamic Law” In Us Courts: Judicial Jihad Or Constitutional Imperative?, Faisal Kutty
Pepperdine Law Review
At the beginning of 2014, about a dozen states introduced or re-introduced bills to ban the use of Sharī’ah law. They hope to join the seven states that have ostensibly banned it to date. Anti-Sharī’ah advocates have cited a number of cases to back their tenuous claim that Sharī’ah is stealthily sneaking in through the doctrine of comity, but a close examination of the cases they cite contradicts their claim. Comity, when one court defers to the jurisdiction of another, has been accepted and denied based on legal principles and public policy, on a case-by-case basis. There is no creeping …
Foreign And Religious Family Law: Comity, Contract, And The Constitution, Ann Laquer Estin
Foreign And Religious Family Law: Comity, Contract, And The Constitution, Ann Laquer Estin
Pepperdine Law Review
The article focuses on role of the U.S. courts in confronting religious laws in dispute resolution of various cases of domestic relations, contracts, and torts. Topics discussed include role of secular courts in maintaining constitutional balance between the free exercise and establishment clauses, constitutional challenges faced by religious adherents, and importance of legal pluralism in the U.S.
Rethinking The “Religious-Question” Doctrine, Christopher C. Lund
Rethinking The “Religious-Question” Doctrine, Christopher C. Lund
Pepperdine Law Review
The “religious question” doctrine is a well-known and commonly accepted notion about the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. The general idea is that, in our system of separated church and state, courts do not decide religious questions. And from this premise, many things flow — including the idea that courts must dismiss otherwise justiciable controversies when they would require courts to resolve religious questions. Yet a vexing thought arises. The religious-question doctrine traditionally comes out of a notion that secular courts cannot resolve metaphysical or theological issues. But when one looks at the cases that courts have been dismissing pursuant to …
Response: Situating Ourselves In History, Steven D. Smith
Response: Situating Ourselves In History, Steven D. Smith
Pepperdine Law Review
The author presents his views on history of religious freedom incorporated in his Brandeis lecture and in the book "The Rise and Decline of American Religious Freedom." Topics discussed include hegemonic status of special protection to religious freedom for legal academics, role of ending religious freedom in providing protection to religious actors under other constitutional provisions like free speech, and impact of ending religious freedom on other freedom like freedom of association.
The End Of Religious Freedom: What Is At Stake?, Nelson Tebbe
The End Of Religious Freedom: What Is At Stake?, Nelson Tebbe
Pepperdine Law Review
In recent work, Steven Smith argues that the American tradition of religious freedom is newly imperiled and may even be nearing exhaustion. This Review puts to one side the substance of that argument and focuses instead on what the stakes might be, should it turn out to be correct. It concludes that the consequences would not be as severe as many people fear.
Theorists, Get Over Yourselves: A Response To Steven D. Smith, Andrew Koppelman
Theorists, Get Over Yourselves: A Response To Steven D. Smith, Andrew Koppelman
Pepperdine Law Review
In this article, the author presents his views in response to the article The Last Chapter? by critic of contemporary liberal theory Steven D. Smith in reference to his book "Defending American Religious Neutrality." Topics discussed include the political aspects associated with religious freedom, role of secularism in eroding religious freedom, and conflicts between religion and modern secular egalitarianism.
More “Vitiating Paradoxes”: A Response To Steven D. Smith, Paul Horwitz
More “Vitiating Paradoxes”: A Response To Steven D. Smith, Paul Horwitz
Pepperdine Law Review
In this article, the author presents his views in response to the article The Last Chapter? by critic Steven D. Smith. Topics discussed include importance of critical legal studies (CLS) theory in reflecting political aspects of religious freedom, views of Smith in his book "The Rise and Decline of American Religious Freedom," and the relationship of egalitarianism with religious freedom.
The Last Chapter?, Steven D. Smith
The Last Chapter?, Steven D. Smith
Pepperdine Law Review
An essay is presented in which the author presents contrasting views of law professors at Stanford and Harvard University, Michael McConnell and Noah Feldman respectively on religious freedom. Topics discussed include requirement of special protection to religious freedom, protection of religious belief and expression under other constitutional provisions such as freedom of speech, and the failure of Obama Administration in providing special freedom of association to religious associations.
A Primer On Hobby Lobby: For-Profit Corporate Entities’ Challenge To The Hhs Mandate, Free Exercise Rights, Rfra’S Scope, And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Terri R. Day, Leticia M. Diaz, Danielle Weatherby
A Primer On Hobby Lobby: For-Profit Corporate Entities’ Challenge To The Hhs Mandate, Free Exercise Rights, Rfra’S Scope, And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Terri R. Day, Leticia M. Diaz, Danielle Weatherby
Pepperdine Law Review
Earlier this term, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated case of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, the first of a litany of cases in which for-profit business entities are invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") in support of their claim that the Affordable Care Act’s HHS Mandate violates their freedom of religion. In particular, these plaintiffs argue that the Mandate’s requirement that employer-provided health insurance covers the costs of contraceptives, the "morning after" pill, and other fertility-related drugs conflicts with their deeply-held religious belief that life begins at conception and is, therefore, unconstitutional. …