Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Legal Writing and Research
Physical Presence Is In No Wayfair!: Addressing The Supreme Court’S Removal Of The Physical Presence Rule And The Need For Congressional Action, Claire Shook
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The Commerce Clause of Article I grants Congress the power to regulate commerce. In the past, an entity had to have a physical presence in a state for that state to impose taxes on the entity. Due to the changing landscape of online businesses, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in South Dakota v. Wayfair in June 2018 to remove the physical presence rule as it applied to the Commerce Clause analysis of state taxation. The Wayfair decision’s ramification is that states can now impose taxes on businesses conducting sales online without having any physical presence in those states. While the …
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 …
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The U.S. Constitution grants American citizens numerous Due Process rights; but, historically, the Supreme Court declined to extend these Due Process rights to children. Initially, common-law courts treated child offenders over the age of seven in the same manner as adult criminals. At the start of the 20th century, though, juvenile reformers assisted in creating unique juvenile courts that used the parens patriae doctrine and viewed children as delinquent youths in need of judicial parental guidance rather than punishment. Later, starting in 1967, the Supreme Court released multiple opinions extending certain constitutional Due Process rights to children in juvenile delinquency …