Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Racialized Tax Inequity: Wealth, Racism, And The U.S. System Of Taxation, Palma Joy Strand, Nicholas A. Mirkay
Racialized Tax Inequity: Wealth, Racism, And The U.S. System Of Taxation, Palma Joy Strand, Nicholas A. Mirkay
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
This Article describes the connection between wealth inequality and the increasing structural racism in the U.S. tax system since the 1980s. A long-term sociological view (the why) reveals the historical racialization of wealth and a shift in the tax system overall beginning around 1980 to protect and exacerbate wealth inequality, which has been fueled by racial animus and anxiety. A critical tax view (the how) highlights a shift over the same time period at both federal and state levels from taxes on wealth, to taxes on income, and then to taxes on consumption—from greater to less progressivity. Both of these …
The Pursuit Of Comprehensive Education Funding Reform Via Litigation, Lisa Scruggs
The Pursuit Of Comprehensive Education Funding Reform Via Litigation, Lisa Scruggs
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
No abstract provided.
Panel Discussion: The Right To Education: With Liberty, Justice, And Education For All?
Panel Discussion: The Right To Education: With Liberty, Justice, And Education For All?
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
No abstract provided.
A Class Action Lawsuit For The Right To A Minimum Education In Detroit, Carter G. Phillips
A Class Action Lawsuit For The Right To A Minimum Education In Detroit, Carter G. Phillips
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
No abstract provided.
The Scrivener’S Error, Ryan D. Doerfler
The Scrivener’S Error, Ryan D. Doerfler
Northwestern University Law Review
It is widely accepted that courts may correct legislative drafting mistakes, i.e., so-called scrivener’s errors, if and only if such mistakes are “absolutely clear.” The rationale is that if a court were to recognize a less clear error, it might be “rewriting” the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.
This Article argues that the standard is much too strict. The current rationale ignores that courts can “rewrite,” i.e., misinterpret, a statute both by recognizing an error and by failing to do so. Accordingly, because the current doctrine is designed to protect against one type of mistake (false positives) but …