Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment (2)
- ACA (1)
- Administrative Review (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Aggravating Circumstances (1)
-
- American Humanist Association (1)
- American Legion (1)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Bank Recharter Bill (1)
- Bank Veto Message (1)
- Brandenburg (1)
- Capital Punishment (1)
- Capital Sentence (1)
- Censorship (1)
- Church and state (1)
- Clear and Present Danger (1)
- Collaboration; Collaborators; Post-Conflict; Armed Conflict; Second World War; Criminal; Trial; Retribution; Non-Retroactivity; Criminal Justice; Truth Commissions; Persecution; Revenge; Allegiance; Duress; International Law; Citizenship; Quisling; Allied; Vichy; Lustration; Nuremberg; Prosecution; Legality; Crime; Punishment; Victims; Rome Statute; Geneva Convention; South Korea; Norway; Germany; France; Timor-Leste; South Africa; Sierra Leone Nazi; Jewish Police; United Nations; Reconstruction; Rehabilitation; Reconciliation; Truth Commission; Amnesty; War; Capital Punishment; Peace; Coercion (1)
- Color blind (1)
- Color blindness (1)
- Community Engagement (1)
- Confession (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Constitutional history (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Courts (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Cross (1)
- Death Eligibility (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Coming To Terms With Wartime Collaboration: Post-Conflict Processes & Legal Challenges, Shane Darcy
Coming To Terms With Wartime Collaboration: Post-Conflict Processes & Legal Challenges, Shane Darcy
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
The phenomenon of collaboration during wartime is as old as war itself. During situations of armed conflict, civilians or combatants belonging to one party to the conflict frequently provide assistance to the opposing side in various ways, such as by disclosing valuable information, defecting and fighting for the enemy, engaging in propaganda, or providing administrative support to an occupying power. Such acts of collaboration have been punished harshly, with violent retribution often directed at alleged collaborators during armed conflict, while states and at times non-state actors have prosecuted and punished collaboration as treason or related offenses in times of war. …
American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla
American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The separation of church and state is a key element of American democracy, but its interpretation has been challenged as the country grows more diverse. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard to analyze whether a religious symbol on public land maintained by public funding violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
Marshall As A Judge, Robert Post
Marshall As A Judge, Robert Post
Fordham Law Review
Marshall is a towering and inspirational figure in the history of American constitutional law. He changed American life forever and unquestionably for the better. But the contemporary significance of Marshall’s legacy is also, in ways that challenge present practices and beliefs, ambiguous.
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Shaw Claim: The Rise And Fall Of Colorblind Jurisprudence, Molly P. Matter
The Shaw Claim: The Rise And Fall Of Colorblind Jurisprudence, Molly P. Matter
Seattle Journal for Social Justice
No abstract provided.
Defying Mcculloch? Jackson’S Bank Veto Reconsidered, David S. Schwartz
Defying Mcculloch? Jackson’S Bank Veto Reconsidered, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
On July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued the most famous and controversial veto in United States history. The bill in question was “to modify and continue” the 1816 “act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States. This was to recharter of the Second Bank of the United States whose constitutionality was famously upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland. The bill was passed by Congress and presented to Jackson on July 4. Six days later, Jackson vetoed the bill. Jackson’s veto mortally wounded the Second Bank, which would forever close its doors four years later at the …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …
Predetermined? The Prospect Of Social Determinant-Based Section 1115 Waivers After Stewart V. Azar, Griffin Schoenbaum
Predetermined? The Prospect Of Social Determinant-Based Section 1115 Waivers After Stewart V. Azar, Griffin Schoenbaum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) to waive some of Medicaid’s requirements so states can enact “demonstration projects.” A demonstration project is an experiment a state can conduct by modifying aspects of its Medicaid program. To waive Medicaid’s requirements for this purpose, the Secretary must determine that the proposed demonstration project will likely assist in promoting Medicaid’s objectives.
Using this standard, President Trump’s Secretary has approved waiver requests to enact demonstration projects that contain “community engagement” requirements. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has heard each …
Whose Market Is It Anyway? A Philosophy And Law Critique Of The Supreme Court’S Free-Speech Absolutism, Spencer Bradley
Whose Market Is It Anyway? A Philosophy And Law Critique Of The Supreme Court’S Free-Speech Absolutism, Spencer Bradley
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
In the wake of Charlottesville, the rise of the alt-right, and campus controversies, the First Amendment has fallen into public scrutiny. Historically, the First Amendment’s “marketplace of ideas” has been a driving source of American political identity; since Brandenburg v. Ohio, the First Amendment protects all speech from government interference unless it causes incitement. The marketplace of ideas allows for the good and the bad ideas to enter American society and ultimately allows the people to decide their own course.
Yet, is the First Amendment truly a tool of social progress? Initially, the First Amendment curtailed war-time dissidents and …
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …
Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley
Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley
Indiana Law Journal
This Note will be primarily divided into three main sections. Part I of this Note will begin by discussing the importance of judicial independence in modern society and the role of elected officials in shaping the public perception of the courts. Additionally, as problems of judicial legitimacy are age-old and date back to America’s founding, Part I will include a brief discussion of an early clash between President Thomas Jefferson and the courts.
Parts II and III of this Note will seek to place President Trump’s conduct towards the judicial branch within the proper historical context. Part II examines the …