Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Affirmative action (1)
- Anti-shredding (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
-
- Congress (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Constitutional rhetoric (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Dignity (1)
- Equal Protection (1)
- Establishment clause (1)
- Federal Circuit Jurisprudence (1)
- Free exercise clause (1)
- Justice Kennedy (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Lawrence v. Texas (1)
- Obergefell v. Hodges (1)
- Over criminalization (1)
- Patent law (1)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (1)
- Religion (1)
- Religious equality (1)
- Religious liberty (1)
- Respectability (1)
- Rule of lenity (1)
- Same-sex marriage (1)
- Sarbanes-Oxley (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
How Much Fuel To Add To The Fire Of Genius? Some Questions About The Repair/Reconstruction Distinction In Patent Law , Arthur Gajarsa, Evelyn Aswad, Joseph Cianfrani
How Much Fuel To Add To The Fire Of Genius? Some Questions About The Repair/Reconstruction Distinction In Patent Law , Arthur Gajarsa, Evelyn Aswad, Joseph Cianfrani
Evelyn Aswad
No abstract provided.
The Respectable Dignity Of Obergefell V. Hodges, Yuvraj Joshi
The Respectable Dignity Of Obergefell V. Hodges, Yuvraj Joshi
Yuvraj Joshi
In declaring state laws that restrict same-sex marriage unconstitutional, Justice Kennedy invoked “dignity” nine times—to no one’s surprise. References in Obergefell to “dignity” are in important respects the culmination of Justice Kennedy’s elevation of the concept, dating back to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, “dignity” expressed respect for a woman’s freedom to make choices about her pregnancy. Casey laid the foundation for Lawrence v. Texas, which similarly respected the freedom of choice of homosexual persons. Yet, starting in United States v. Windsor and continuing in Obergefell, the narrative began to change. Dignity veered …
The Constitutional Rhetoric Of White Innocence
The Constitutional Rhetoric Of White Innocence
Cecil J. Hunt II
This article discusses the Supreme Court’s use of the rhetoric of white innocence in deciding racially inflected claims of constitutional shelter. It argues that the Court’s use of this rhetoric reveals that it has adopted a distinctly white-centered-perspective which reveals only a one-sided view of racial reality and thus distorts its ability to accurately appreciate the true nature of racial reality in contemporary America. This article examines the Court’s habit of consistently choosing a white-centered-perspective in constitutional race cases by looking at the Court’s use of the rhetoric of white innocence first in the context of the Court’s concern with …
The Pluralistic Foundations Of The Religion Clauses, Steven Shiffrin
The Pluralistic Foundations Of The Religion Clauses, Steven Shiffrin
Steven H. Shiffrin
Contemporary Supreme Court interpretations suggest that the religion clauses are primarily rooted in the value of equality. The United States Supreme Court has argued that in the absence of discrimination against religion (or the presence of other constitutional values), there is no violation of the Free Exercise Clause when a statute inadvertently burdens religion. Similarly, equality values have played a strong role in the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Many distinguished commentators have pointed to the equality focus and have argued that it gives insufficient attention to the value of religious liberty. Professor Shiffrin argues that these commentators are right in …
Shredded Fish Redux, Robert Sanger
Shredded Fish Redux, Robert Sanger
Robert M. Sanger
The Yates case, in which certiorari had been granted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had been discussed in a previous column of Criminal Justice. The article was entitled “Shredded Fish” because the sea captain in Yates was prosecuted under the document shredding provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for destroying fish. That case has now been decided by the United States Supreme Court in Yates v. United States, on February 25, 2015. The case involves the rule of lenity as well as a discussion of overcriminalization.