Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitution (37)
- First Amendment (36)
- Law (24)
- Constitutional Law (23)
- Washington (22)
-
- Seattle University Law Review (15)
- Thirteenth Amendment (15)
- Fourth Amendment (14)
- Slavery (14)
- Seattle University (12)
- Constitutional law (11)
- Criminal Law (10)
- Fifth Amendment (10)
- Supreme Court (10)
- Privacy (9)
- Search (9)
- Seizure (9)
- Evidence (8)
- Involuntary Servitude (8)
- Race (8)
- Commerce Clause (7)
- Constitutional Law casebooks (7)
- Discrimination (7)
- Federalism (7)
- Fourteenth Amendment (7)
- Original intent (7)
- Religion (7)
- Voting rights (7)
- Affirmative Action (6)
- Civil Rights (6)
- Publication Year
Articles 391 - 403 of 403
Full-Text Articles in Law
The State's Interest In Adoption And Washington's Sealed Records Statute, Eileen M. Lawrence
The State's Interest In Adoption And Washington's Sealed Records Statute, Eileen M. Lawrence
Seattle University Law Review
After discussing the legal effect of the adoption decree and the purpose of Washington's adoption statute, this comment will analyze the competing interests of the adoptee, the biological parents, the adoptive parents, and the state. This article will also discuss the legislative proposal in Washington attempting to abolish the good cause requirement. Finally, this article concludes the sealed records requirement is constitutionally sound and despite the need for further legislative articulation, the good cause balancing approach is the most suitable method for protecting the conflicting rights and interests inherent in the adoption process.
The Broadening Of The Pentagon Papers Standard: An Impermissible Misapplication Of The National Security Exception To The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Sherrie L. Bennett
The Broadening Of The Pentagon Papers Standard: An Impermissible Misapplication Of The National Security Exception To The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Sherrie L. Bennett
Seattle University Law Review
This comment examines the history of the national security exception to the prior restraint rule and discusses the elements of the Pentagon Papers standard in the context of the Marchetti and Progressive opinions. Application of those elements to the reasoning of the cases demonstrates the failure of these lower courts to follow the Supreme Court's strict view of when restraint is justified. Examining the theoretical basis underlying the first amendment, the comment concludes that strict application of the Pentagon Papers standard is essential to continuing protection of the American people's right to be informed of government activities.
Can The Boat People Assert A Right To Remain In Asylum?, Brian Roberts
Can The Boat People Assert A Right To Remain In Asylum?, Brian Roberts
Seattle University Law Review
World political reaction to the Southeast Asian refugee crisis has not asserted the refugees' human rights under international law. As a result, most of the refugees lack security from forcible return to the conditions they fled. They would have that security if the world powers act instead to implement non-refoulement, an established moral principle that arguably has attained the status of customary international law.
Proposed Citizens Right To Standing Act-Finding The Keys To Unlock The Courthouse Doors, Harold W. Wood, Jr.
Proposed Citizens Right To Standing Act-Finding The Keys To Unlock The Courthouse Doors, Harold W. Wood, Jr.
Seattle University Law Review
Recent Supreme Court decisions severely restrict the right of citizens to litigate in federal courts. The Court's standing requirements not only limit the ability of citizens to successfully invoke federal court jurisdiction, but also confuse lower courts and litigants attempting to apply the requirements. Standing requirements have met with increasing criticism. And Congress is now considering legislative modification of standing doctrine. Unfortunately, the Court's employment of constitutional foundations in establishing current standing requirements imposes substantial roadblocks Congress must avoid to enact remedial standing legislation. This comment examines the constitutional and pragmatic difficulties of statutory modification of standing requirements and recommends …
Marbury V. Madison, Lord Coke, And Dr. Bonham: Relics Of The Past, Guidelines For The Present—Judicial Review Intransition?, George P. Smith, Ii
Marbury V. Madison, Lord Coke, And Dr. Bonham: Relics Of The Past, Guidelines For The Present—Judicial Review Intransition?, George P. Smith, Ii
Seattle University Law Review
The purpose of this article is to explore the modern significance of Coke's influence as analyzed and interpreted through the famous Bonham's Case and thereby to provide an insight into the development of our own concepts of judicial review, as borrowed from the English, in its original historical legal perspective and as seen through the decision in Marbury v. Madison and applied modernly in the principle case of Baker v. Carr.
Gagging The Press Through Participant And Closure Orders: The Aftermath Of Nebraska Press Association V. Stuart, Valerie Bell
Gagging The Press Through Participant And Closure Orders: The Aftermath Of Nebraska Press Association V. Stuart, Valerie Bell
Seattle University Law Review
In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart the Supreme Court held that trial courts trying to minimize prejudicial publicity to preserve a fair trial must consider alternatives less drastic than gagging the press. This comment will examine post- Nebraska Press cases involving orders that restrict the flow of information concerning judicial proceedings and will suggest standards that focus on whether an indirect gag order inhibits media coverage of the judicial process. After a brief discussion of Nebraska Press' reasoning and its emphasis on the prior restraint doctrine, a survey of lower court cases will demonstrate Nebraska Press has not prevented judges …
Status Of Student Practice Rules People V. Perez—An Initial Look At The Sixth Amendment, Catherine Walker
Status Of Student Practice Rules People V. Perez—An Initial Look At The Sixth Amendment, Catherine Walker
Seattle University Law Review
Despite the advent of the limited practice of law by law students as early as 1957, a California Court of Appeals in 1978 became the first court to examine the sixth amendment status of student representation in state criminal prosecutions. In People v. Perez, a California appellate court concluded that a lawyer-supervised law student, certified for limited practice by the California Student Practice Rules, is per se ineffective counsel in felony trials. Ostensibly to protect the defendant's right to effective counsel, Perez struck down the student practice rules without considering the proper function of certification in sixth amendment analysis. Moreover, …
Parent-Child Privilege: Constitutional Right Or Specious Analogy?, Donald Cofer
Parent-Child Privilege: Constitutional Right Or Specious Analogy?, Donald Cofer
Seattle University Law Review
To avoid reaching incorrect verdicts as a result of insufficient evidence, courts generally require witnesses to testify to all relevant facts within their knowledge. Two important exceptions to this general rule, incompetency and privilege, rest on very different rationales. Developed at common law to exclude unreliable evidence, rules of competency disqualify certain untrustworthy witnesses from testifying. To promote extrinsic public policies, however, privileges excuse competent witnesses from providing what may be highly probative and reliable evidence. In the past decade there have been calls for legislative or judicial recognition of a parent-child privilege, similar to the marital privilege, that would …
United States Trust Co. V. New Jersey-State Promises And The Contract Clause: An Untimely Resurrection, Clifford D. Foster Jr.
United States Trust Co. V. New Jersey-State Promises And The Contract Clause: An Untimely Resurrection, Clifford D. Foster Jr.
Seattle University Law Review
This comment examines the impact of United States Trust on traditional contract clause doctrines and policies. After an initial discussion of the factual and legal background, a historical survey will show the decision employs a new approach to contract clause analysis. Next, this comment will analyze the Court's new approach, especially the Court's treatment of impairments when a state is a contractual party, its willingness to make policy judgments formerly left to legislative discretion, and the decision's probable effect on any future municipal debt crises. Finally, in accord with Justice Brennan's dissent in United States Trust, this comment will …
A Case For Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens And The First Amendment, Richard G. Birinyi
A Case For Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens And The First Amendment, Richard G. Birinyi
Seattle University Law Review
This comment discusses four of Justice Stevens's opinions that analyze first amendment issues. Two dissenting opinions in Splawn v. California and Smith v. United States deal expressly with obscenity, and reject the Court's present method of analysis. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. and Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation both develop a balancing approach to ascertain the constitutionality of government regulation of nonobscene offensive speech. The comment concludes that Justice Stevens correctly identifies the factors necessary to insure proper Court protection of speech interests.
Equal Protection And Welfare Legislation: The Need For A Principled Approach, Lynda D. Frazier
Equal Protection And Welfare Legislation: The Need For A Principled Approach, Lynda D. Frazier
Seattle University Law Review
The Supreme Court decision in Maher v. Roe, denying an equal protection claim to Medicaid payments for elective abortions, illustrates the Court's inconsistent application of minimal rationality standards to socioeconomic legislation. This comment analyzes Maher in light of recent irreconcilable Supreme Court decisions involving similar equal protection claims to welfare payments. It shows that the Court's standard of review vacillates between deferential abdication to the legislature and unexplained judicial interventionism, and concludes that until the Court adheres to a consistent and principled approach to minimal rationality review, equal protection will remain an area for unrestrained imposition of judicial, rather …
The Duty To Decide Vs. The Daedalian Doctrine Of Abstention, Harlan S. Abrahams, Brian E. Mattis
The Duty To Decide Vs. The Daedalian Doctrine Of Abstention, Harlan S. Abrahams, Brian E. Mattis
Seattle University Law Review
It is the thesis of this article that the growing trend in the federal courts to refuse to exercise their assigned jurisdiction violates the doctrine of the separation of powers, and that the federal judiciary's excuses for refusing to perform their tasks do not pass constitutional muster. Specifically, this article will demonstrate that those excuses either do not rise to a level of constitutional concern sufficient to justify the trend or are based on a perversion of the admittedly constitutional concept of federalism, a concept affording the individual citizen a structural protection against arbitrary government in additionto the structural protection …
Libel: Taskett V. King Broadcasting Co.--A New Washington Standard, Roy W. Kent
Libel: Taskett V. King Broadcasting Co.--A New Washington Standard, Roy W. Kent
Seattle University Law Review
In Taskett v. KING Broadcasting Co., the Washington Supreme Court reevaluated the constitutional limits on libel law with regard to private individuals involved in matters of public interest, and held that private individuals can recover damages "on a showing that in publishing the statement, the defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the statement was false." In adopting the reasonable care standard, the Washington Supreme Court sought to achieve an equitable balance between the media's first amendment rights of free speech and press and the state's interest in compensating private citizens for harm …