Law Commons^™

A Breath Of Fresh Air: A Constitutional Amendment Legalizing Marijuana Through An Article V Convention Of The States, Ryan C. Griffith, Esq.

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Criminal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws by the United States federal government has been non-sensical for more than twenty years. Culminating, ultimately, in an anomaly within American jurisprudence when California legalized marijuana in 1996 in direct violation of federal law, yet the federal government did little to stop it. Since then, a majority of states have followed California and legalized marijuana. Currently, thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana despite federal law. Every year billions of dollars are spent on the federal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws while states collect billions in tax revenue from marijuana sales. Even …

Is This A Christian Nation?: Virtual Symposium September 25, 2020, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Court Of Appeals

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Going To The Clerk’S Office And We’Re Not Going To Get Married, Alicia F. Blanchard

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Same-sex marriage is a controversial topic subject to great debate. The Supreme Court in 2015 federally recognized the legality of same-sex marriages in Obergefell v. Hodges. Despite this ruling, some people looked for any reason to denounce the holding. Perhaps none were more vocal than those who rejected same-sex marriage on the basis of their religious tenets. Miller v. Davis provided people who were morally opposed to same-sex marriage a platform to support their concerns grounded in a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The question is how far does one’s freedom of religion extend? Does freedom of religion …

Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Is Wall Between Church And State Crumbling? 10-10-2017, Diana Hassel

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: Is The Wall Between Church And State Crumbling? 10-07-2017, Diana Hassel

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

When Do The Ends Justify The Means?: The Role Of The Necessary And Proper Clause In The Commerce Clause Analysis, David Loudon

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This Article discusses the interplay between the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause, particularly in light of the landmark decision of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. First, this Article reviews the historical interaction between the two clauses, discussing the instances in which the two may have been considered together, and introducing the Supreme Court jurisprudence of each clause, setting the legal landscape for the NFIB v. Sebelius decision. Next, this Article details the three opinions from the NFIB v. Sebelius decision, Chief Justice Roberts’ holding, the joint concurrence, and Justice Ginsberg’s dissent, specifically as they …

What About The Victims? Domestic Violence, Hearsay, And The Confrontation Clause In The Aftermath Of Davis V. Washington, Stacey Gauthier

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This article analyzes the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, admission of hearsay statements, and the effect of the Davis decision on the prosecution of domestic violence cases. Part II discusses the history of the Confrontation Clause. Part III discusses hearsay prior to Crawford. Parts IV, V, and VI discuss the landmark cases Crawford v. Washington, Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, and Davis v. Washington, respectively, with regard to whether statements made to police are admissible when the declarant is not available to testify at trial. The reasons why the Supreme Court’s extension of the Confrontation Clause is unwarranted are contained …

2007 National Lawyer’S Convention The Federalist Society And Its Federalism And Separation Of Powers Practice Groups Present A Panel Debate On Federalism: Religion, Early America And The Fourteenth Amendment, John Eastman, Marci Hamilton, William H. Pryor Jr.

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Transcript of the Federalist Society and its Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Groups panel debate at the 2007 National Lawyers Convention including panelists Dean John Eastman of Chapman University School of Law, Professor Marci Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and moderated by Hon. William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Supreme Court, New York County, Khrapunskiy V. Doar, Daphne Vlcek

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keynote Address: 14th Annual Conference On Litigating Takings Challenges To Land Use And Environmental Regulations, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Keynote address to the 14th Annual Annual Conference on Litigating Takings Challenges to Land Use and Environmental Regulations, November 18, 2011 at Georgetown University Law School.

This conference explores the regulatory takings issue as it relates to land use and environmental regulation. The conference brings together a diverse group of leading scholars and experienced practitioners to discuss cutting-edge issues raised by recent decisions and pending court cases. Some of the topics to be discussed include takings claims generated by major flooding events in the Mississippi River, including Hurricane Katrina and the Mississippi floods of 2011, the takings issues raised by …

Supreme Court Section 1983 Decisions: (October 2001 Term), Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Section 1983 Decisions: (October 2001 Term), Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Paradise Lost: Good News Club, Charitable Choice, And The State Of Religious Freedom, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

The United States Constitution's two religion clauses prohibit Congress from passing laws that establish religion or restrict its free exercise. This Note argues that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson worked to include this language in the Constitution because of their belief that citizens' religious duties were more fundamental than their civic duties. It argues that they intended the Constitution's religion clauses to form a simple dialectic: the government may not force citizens to renounce their religious duties by compelling them to support another faith, nor may it pass laws that act coercively to restrict their religious beliefs and practices. This …

Simultaneous Copyright And Trade Secret Claims: Can The Copyright Misuse Defense Prevent Constitutional Doublethink?, Ralph D. Clifford

Faculty Publications

As the Constitution authorizes Congress to grant copyrights, it subjects the power to a public purpose requirement. Any monopoly Congress grants must be for the purpose of “promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts.” But one result of Congress enacting the 1976 Act is a potential conflict between the Act and this public purpose requirement. An owner of intellectual property may believe that both copyright law – which mandates disclosure – and trade secret law – which mandates secrecy – can be used simultaneously. To believe that disclosure and secrecy can coexist is doublethink as both cannot be true. …

Berger V. The Supreme Court—The Implications Of His Exceptions-Clause Odyssey, Thomas B. Mcaffee

Scholarly Works

In his 1969 Congress v. The Supreme Court, Raoul Berger evaluated the potential claims to supremacy of Congress and the Supreme Court under the exceptions clause of article III and found in favor of the Supreme Court. Berger explicated a narrow construction of Congress’ express power to make exceptions to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, holding that Congress’ claimed power to curb judicial excess was at odds with the design of the Constitution and without historical foundation. From 1969 to 1980, Berger reaffirmed his initial reading of the legislative history of article III no less than four times, once in …