Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Law

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. Dec 2014

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.


In Impartiality We Trust: A Commentary On Government Aid And Involvement With Religion, Thomas J. Cleary Dec 2014

In Impartiality We Trust: A Commentary On Government Aid And Involvement With Religion, Thomas J. Cleary

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Ultimately, because true neutrality is not possible, nearly all government interaction with religion is to some degree friendly or hostile. One could argue, therefore, that government interaction with religion is inherently friendly or hostile in nature. As a consequence, establishing neutrality as the ideal misses the mark and has produced a swinging pendulum in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. At one end of its arc the pendulum produces hostility towards religion and at the other end of the arc it produces friendliness towards religion. This is reflected in case law and in both early and modern government practices. Ultimately, the pendulum …


First Amendment Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky, Marci A. Hamilton May 2014

First Amendment Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky, Marci A. Hamilton

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


An Overview Of The October 2006 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky May 2014

An Overview Of The October 2006 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Court Of Appeals Of New York - Catholic Charities Of The Diocese Of Albany V. Serio, Sarah Marx May 2014

Court Of Appeals Of New York - Catholic Charities Of The Diocese Of Albany V. Serio, Sarah Marx

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Whistleblowing And Free Speech: Garcetti's Early Progeny And Shrinking Constitutional Rights Of Public Employees, J. Michael Mcguinness Apr 2014

Whistleblowing And Free Speech: Garcetti's Early Progeny And Shrinking Constitutional Rights Of Public Employees, J. Michael Mcguinness

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


On Business Torts And The First Amendment, Richard J. Peltz-Steele Jan 2014

On Business Torts And The First Amendment, Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Faculty Publications

A gaping question in free speech law surrounds the application of the First Amendment defense in business torts. The pervasiveness of communication technologies, the flourishing of privacy law, and the mere passage of time have precipitated an escalation in tort cases in which communication, and what the defendant may allege is free speech, lies at the heart of the matter.


The New American Privacy, Richard J. Peltz-Steele Jan 2014

The New American Privacy, Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Faculty Publications

The European Union sparked an intercontinental furor last year with proposed legislation to supersede the 1995 Data Protection Directive (DPD). The EU Parliament approved legislation in a 49-3 committee vote in October. The text, which is not yet published in its current draft at the time of this writing, may yet be amended before being accepted by the union’s 28 member states. The legislation is billed a money saver because it would harmonize EU member states’ data protection laws, which have diverged under the DPD umbrella. The business community is not convinced, fearful that costly new demands will strain balance …