Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Absent Declarants (1)
- Citizenship (1)
- Civil War (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Congress (1)
-
- Constitution (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Evidence Rules (1)
- Federal government (1)
- Fordham Urban Law Journal (1)
- Hearsay Exception (1)
- International and municipal law (1)
- International law (1)
- Jury (1)
- Laws of War (1)
- Nonhearsay (1)
- Proof (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Testimonial Hearsay (1)
- Treaties (1)
- Unintended Assertions (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Constitution And The Laws Of War During The Civil War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure, Andrew Kent
Constitution And The Laws Of War During The Civil War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure, Andrew Kent
Faculty Scholarship
This Article uncovers the forgotten complex of relationships between the U.S. Constitution, citizenship and the laws of war. The Supreme Court today believes that both noncitizens and citizens who are military enemies in a congressionally-authorized war are entitled to judicially-enforceable rights under the Constitution. The older view was that the U.S. government’s military actions against noncitizen enemies were not limited by the Constitution, but only by the international laws of war. On the other hand, in the antebellum period, the prevailing view was U.S. citizenship should carry with it protection from ever being treated as a military enemy under the …
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Faculty Scholarship
Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …
Treaties As "Part Of Our Law", Ernest A. Young
Treaties As "Part Of Our Law", Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Facial And As-Applied Challenges Under The Roberts Court, Gillian E. Metzger
Facial And As-Applied Challenges Under The Roberts Court, Gillian E. Metzger
Faculty Scholarship
One recurring theme of the Roberts Court's jurisprudence to date is its resistance to facial constitutional challenges and preference for as-applied litigation. On a number of occasions the Court has rejected facial constitutional challenges while reserving the possibility that narrower as-applied claims might succeed. According to the Court, such as-applied claims are "the basic building blocks of constitutional adjudication." This preference for as-applied over facial challenges has surfaced with some frequency, across terms and in contexts involving different constitutional rights, at times garnering support from all the Justices. Moreover, the Roberts Court has advocated the as-applied approach in contexts in …