Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Originalism And Loving V. Virginia, Steven G. Calabresi, Andrea Matthews
Originalism And Loving V. Virginia, Steven G. Calabresi, Andrea Matthews
Faculty Working Papers
This article makes an originalist argument in defense of the Supreme Court's holding in Loving v. Virginia that antimiscegenation laws are unconstitutional. This article builds on past work by Professor Michael McConnell defending Brown v. Board of Education on originalist grounds and by Professor Calabresi defending strict scrutiny for gender classifications on originalist grounds. Professor Calabresi's work in this area was defended and praise recently by Slate magazine online. The article shows that Loving v. Virginia is defensible using the public meaning originalism advocated for by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. This article shows that the issue in Loving …
Can Immune Parties Really Be Responsible: An Analysis Of The Current Interpretation Of The Texas Responsible Third Party Statute And Its Vulnerability To Constitutional Challenge., Justin C. Roberts, Randell Roberts
Can Immune Parties Really Be Responsible: An Analysis Of The Current Interpretation Of The Texas Responsible Third Party Statute And Its Vulnerability To Constitutional Challenge., Justin C. Roberts, Randell Roberts
St. Mary's Law Journal
The Texas Responsible Third Party (RTP) statute was amended in 2003 to give defendants the opportunity to have the jury apportion responsibility for the plaintiff’s damages to persons who were not joined in the lawsuit. A defendant could achieve this result by designating a “responsible third party.” Plaintiffs may often join responsible third parties as additional defendants. Under such situations, all culpable parties are before the court, defending themselves, and accountable to the plaintiff for their percentage of responsibility. When the statute worked in this fashion it achieved “a carefully constructed scheme balancing the interests of both defendants and claimants.” …
Juvenile Justice After Graham V. Florida: Keeping Due Process, Autonomy, And Paternalism In Balance, Kristin N. Henning
Juvenile Justice After Graham V. Florida: Keeping Due Process, Autonomy, And Paternalism In Balance, Kristin N. Henning
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Legal disputes involving children invariably evoke a complex matrix of issues such as child and adolescent capacity, individual rights and autonomy, parental authority, and in the criminal justice context-diminished culpability for a minor's actions. While it is difficult to identify a clear and cohesive jurisprudence regarding the balance between children's autonomy and children's vulnerability across Supreme Court cases, a series of cases over the last decade, including Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and J.D.B. v. North Carolina, offer a more consistent view of children as vulnerable, malleable, and in need of protection, at least in the …