Digital Commons Network^™

To What Extent Does The Power Of Government To Determine The Boundaries And Conditions Of Lawful Commerce Permit Government To Declare Who May Advertise And Who May Not?, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Disciplining Delegation After "Whitman V. American Trucking Ass'ns", Lisa Schultz Bressman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court's recent reversal of the D.C. Circuit's decision in "Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns" brings to center stage the critical question for disciplining delegation of lawmaking authority to administrative agencies: Should courts use constitutional law or administrative law for requiring agencies to supply the standards that guide and limit their lawmaking discretion when Congress does not? Professor Bressman argues that "Ashwander v. TVA" provides a resolution. In Ashwander, Justice Brandeis directed courts to refrain from deciding constitutional questions unless absolutely necessary to decide a particular case. Following Justice Brandeis' now famous teaching, courts should refrain from using constitutional …

Protecting America First: Deporting Aliens Associated With Designated Terrorist Organizations That Have Committed Terrorism In America In The Face Of Actual Threats To National Security, Dana B. Weiss

Cleveland State Law Review

In light of the devastation and destruction caused by the September 11th attacks and the remaining imminent threat of more attacks in this country, this Note proposes legislation that would provide for removal of aliens who are merely associated with a known terrorist organization that has committed acts of terrorism in the United States. Part II outlines the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) legislation in effect at the time of the attacks and the rationale behind prohibiting deportation for mere association with a known terrorist organization. Part III discusses newly enacted legislation strengthening deportation laws, which do not go as …

Splitting The Atom Of Marshall's Wisdom, Susan Herman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Third Circuit's Approach To The Private Enforcement Of Administrative Agency Regulations Under Section 1983, Lisa M. Lamb

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

America’S Death Penalty: Just Another Form Of Violence, John Bessler

All Faculty Scholarship

The author in this piece reflects on the death penalty in the U.S. in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The writer goes on to argue that capital punishment is, in and of itself, a form of violence. Also discussed in the article are the gradual removal of executions from public view, issues of deterrence and violent crime, and the author's preference for life-without-possibility-of-parole sentences.

Department Of Justice Oversight: Preserving Our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 107th Cong., Dec. 6, 2001 (Statement Of Neal Kumar Katyal, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Neal K. Katyal

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act Of 2000: The Land Use Provisions Are Both Unconstitutional And Unnecessary, Ada-Marie Walsh

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 was Congress 'response to the Supreme Court's striking down of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in City of Boerne v. Flores. In promulgating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Congress, inter alia, sought to protect the free exercise of religion from excessive governmental meddling while remedying discrimination suffered by religious individuals and groups in the area of land use. In dealing solely with land use provisions of the RLUIPA, the author argues that the Religious Land Use and lnstitutionalized Person Act is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment …

Compelled Statements From Police Officers And Garrity Immunity, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In this Article, Professor Steven Clymer describes the problem created when police departments require officers suspected of misconduct to answer internal affairs investigators' questions or face job termination. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Garrity v. New Jersey, courts treat such compelled statements as immunized testimony. That treatment not only renders such a statement inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of the suspect police officer, it also may require the prosecution to shoulder the daunting and sometimes insurmountable burden of demonstrating that its physical evidence, witness testimony, and strategic decisionmaking are untainted by the statement. Because police internal affairs …

Shooting Blanks: The Supreme Court's Flawed Analysis In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Emily Horowitz

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Long Distance Remand: Florida V. Bostick And The Re-Awakened Bus Search Battlefront In The War On Drugs, Dennis J. Callahan

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Lochner Met Dolan: The Attempted Transformation Of American Land Use Law By Constitutional Interpretation, Ronald H. Rosenberg, Nancy Stroud

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Gur Aryeh V. Second Television And Radio Authority, Aharon Barak, Shlomo Levin, Dalia Dorner

Translated Opinions

Facts: Petitioners are the subject of a film made by or for the respondents.  The film was designated for broadcast on television on Shabbat.  When the petitioners discovered the film was going to be broadcast on Shabbat they approached the Second Television and Radio Authority, and asked that the film not be broadcast on Shabbat stating that broadcast of the film on Shabbat would harm their religious feelings and violate their religious freedom.  The request was denied by the Second Television and Radio Authority, which was willing to add captions on the screen which would state that the film was …

The Public Interest Standard: Is It Too Indeterminate To Be Constitutional?, Randolph J. May

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Article argues that the congressional delegation of public interest authority to the FCC likely violates the nondelegation doctrine that inheres in the constitutional separation of powers scheme and that, even if the courts do not hold the public interest delegation unconstitutional, Congress should revise the Communications Act to set forth more specific guidance for the FCC. In today’s environment of “convergence,” in which competition is flourishing across communications sectors, Congress should not shirk its responsibility to establish fundamental policy for an industry that contributes so much to the overall health of our economy. This Article argues that Congress should …

Perspectives On Freedom Of Conscience And Religion In The Jurisprudence Of Constitutional Courts, Leszek Lech Garlicki

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Religious Freedom: Russian Constitutional Principles-Historical And Contemporary, Nikolas K. Gvosdev

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Regulation Of Religious Proselytism In The United States, Howard O. Hunter, Polly J. Price

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Attempt At Modernization: The New Bulgarian Legislation In The Field Of Religious Freedom, Atanas Krussteff

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does The Human Right To Freedom Of Conscience, Religion, And Belief Have Special Status?, David Little

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Personal Does Not Always Equal "Private": The Constitutionality Of Requiring Dna Samples From Convicted Felons And Arrestees, Martha L. Lawson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the past couple of decades, the use of DNA testing has become a major debate in criminal law. Many Americans have called for regular use of DNA testing in criminal cases, particularly in the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson murder trial. While these tests can potentially help better ensure justice conducting DNA tests raises fundamental personal privacy concerns. This Note analyzes the development of DNA testing throughout the United States, giving a historical account of how the courts and local police departments have dealt with this testing Finally, the Note argues that the government's interest in mandatory testing of …

Disarming Canadians, And Arming Them With Tolerance: Banning Firearms And Minimum Sentences To Control Violent Crime--An Essay On An Apparent Contradiction, Helene Dumont

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In an article published in French in 1997, the author offered reflections on feminism and criminal law that would allow for a better control of violent crime, without Parliament having to resort to excessively severe sentences. In this respect, she argued that there was no contradiction in supporting the radical ban of firearms in Canada, while opposing a minimum sentence of four years under the Firearms Act, which currently affects approximately ten serious Criminal Code offences. After setting out her position in favour of the "disarmament" of Canadians, the author argued that minimum sentences of four years were unconstitutional. Such …

Brief Amici Curiae Of Legal Historians Listed Herein In Support Of Respondent, I.N.S. V. St. Cyr, No. 00-767 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2001), ., James Oldham

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss

Michigan Law Review

Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …

Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …

The Paths Not Taken: The Supreme Court's Failures In Dickerson, Paul G. Cassell

Michigan Law Review

Where's the rest of the opinion? That was my immediate reaction to reading the Supreme Court's terse decision in Dickerson, delivered to me via email from the clerk's office a few minutes after its release. Surely, I thought, some glitch in the transmission had eliminated the pages of discussion on the critical issues in the case. Yet, as it became clear that I had received all of the Court's opinion, my incredulity grew.

Miranda, Dickerson, And The Puzzling Persistence Of Fifth Amendment Exceptionalism, Stephen J. Schulhofer

Michigan Law Review

Dickerson v. United States preserves the status quo regime for judicial oversight of police interrogation. That result could be seen, in the present climate, as a victory for due process values, but there remain many reasons for concern that existing safeguards are flawed - that they are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Such concerns are partly empirical, of course. They depend on factual assessments of how much the Miranda rules do restrict the police. But such concerns also reflect a crucial, though often unstated, normative premise; they presuppose a certain view of how much the police should be …

In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg

Michigan Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …

Karsik V. State Of Israel, Mishael Cheshin, Aharon Barak, Tova Strasberg-Cohen, Aharon Barak, Shlomo Levin, Dalia Dorner, Dorit Beinisch

Translated Opinions

Facts: In the late 1950’s the army needed training area and for this purpose the authorities worked to expropriate a range of about 137 dunam of land in the region of Hadera in accordance with the Lands Ordinance (Purchase for Public Purposes) 1943.  After a number of years – on 24 March 1966 – and according to his authority in section 19 of the Expropriations Ordinance, the Minister of Finance published a notice as to the granting of the land to the State and the land was registered in the land registration books in the name of the State.

The …

Starbucks And The New Federalism: The Court's Answer To Globalization, Robert Knowles

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Do As I Say And Not As I Do: Dickerson, Constitutional Common Law And The Imperial Supreme Court, Kevin Mcnamee

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Comment examines the Supreme Court's Miranda jurisprudence through the lens of the "constitutional common law" theory, which suggests that the Supreme Court has crafted a large body of subconstitutional rules that are not compelled by the text of the Constitution but serve to protect values implicit in the text. As a result, such rules are subject to the limitations of modification and nullification by later courts. After presenting the characteristics of the constitutional common law theory and its relationship to federalism and separation of powers, the author suggests that the theory can explain the erosion of Miranda decision's brightline …