Law Commons^™

Agenda: Introduction To The Legal Foundation Of Federal Land Management, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Introduction to the Legal Foundation of Federal Land Management (December 1-3)

Materials prepared for the course held at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado on December 1-3, 2004

Course instructors: Charles Wilkinson; Sarah Krakoff; Kathryn Mutz; Ann Morgan; Maggie Fox

Contents:

Introduction -- Agenda -- Summaries of laws -- Case studies. Travel management; Oil and gas development; Timber/fuels reduction -- How to influence agency decision makers -- Natural resource related legal and policy resources for the non-legal professional

Introduction To The Legal Foundation Of Federal Land Management, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Introduction to the Legal Foundation of Federal Land Management (December 1-3)

1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 28 cm

Materials prepared for the course held at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado on December 1-3, 2004

Course instructors: Charles Wilkinson; Sarah Krakoff; Kathryn Mutz; Ann Morgan; Maggie Fox

Contents:

Introduction -- Agenda -- Summaries of laws -- Case studies. Travel management; Oil and gas development; Timber/fuels reduction -- How to influence agency decision makers -- Natural resource related legal and policy resources for the non-legal professional

Foreword - Interdisciplinary Perspectives On Fear And Risk Perception In Times Of Democratic Crisis (Symposium), Christina E. Wells, Jennifer K. Robbennolt

Faculty Publications

The articles and essays included or referenced in this volume discuss both the factors that affect decision making in times of crisis and their implications for law and democratic theory. Professor Cass Sunstein's keynote address, Fear and Liberty, noted that psychological biases such as the availability heuristic and probability neglect can skew risk perception, leading to excessive public fear of national security risks and unreasonable curtailment of civil liberties. According to Sunstein, courts, which are typically responsible for protecting civil liberties, often lack sufficient information to assess whether national security concerns justify incursions on civil liberties. Nevertheless, he concluded that …

Questioning Deference, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

This article examines the accepted axiom that courts should defer to the government's actions during national security crises even when such actions potentially violate citizens' constitutional rights. The paper questions two assumptions underlying that axiom - first, that executive officials are best equipped to determine when security needs justify liberty infringements and, second, that judges are particularly unqualified to meddle in security issues, even when civil liberties are involved. Relying on psychological theories regarding the role that fear plays in skewing risk assessment and historical analyses of past crises, the paper argues that times of crisis lend themselves to unnecessary …

Is Criminal Justice A Casualty Of The Bush Administration's War On Terror?, Michael Greenberger

Faculty Scholarship

Relying on Article I Presidential War Powers, the Bush administration has employed many detention and law enforcement strategies in fighting the War on Terrorism that seemingly give short shrift to traditional constitutional protections. The first of these strategies will be subject to Supreme Court resolution by the end of this Term and concerns the Bush Administration tactic of unilaterally declaring U.S. citizens to be "enemy combatants," thereby subjecting them to incarceration in military prisons without any right to counsel, prior judicial process, or judicial review of this status. Another strategy employed on a widespread basis by the DOJ after September …

Judging Terror In The "Zone Of Twilight" Exigency, Institutional Equity, And Procedure After September 11, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Information Control In Times Of Crisis: The Tools Of Repression (Symposium, Privacy And Surveillance), Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

This article identifies several tools of information control that occur consistently throughout history. The government does not use all of these tools in every national security crisis. Nor does it always abuse them. However, the patterns that emerge suggest a certain predictability to (1) the government's actions during national security crises, and (2) the potentially negative consequences flowing from them that warrants our attention. Understanding this historical pattern of government action allows one to identify and potentially prevent future problems. This is especially important in the post-9/11 world in which the government has asked for and received controversial powers with …

Federal Common Law In An Age Of Treaties, Michael P. Van Alstine

Faculty Scholarship

In this article Professor Van Alstine explores the interaction between the limitations on the doctrine of federal common law and the power of federal courts to interpret the law within the scope of treaties. The article first reviews the constitutional foundation for the operation of treaties as directly applicable ("self-executing") federal law. It then explains that, notwithstanding the Erie doctrine, federal courts may obtain lawmaking powers from either a delegation by Congress or in certain areas of "uniquely federal interest."

Professor Van Alstine then argues that the judicial relationship with self-executing treaty law in principle proceeds from the same source …

The Presidential Oath, The American National Interest And A Call For Presiprudence, Robert F. Blomquist

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The President's Power To Detain "Enemy Combatants": Modern Lessons From Mr. Madison's Forgotten War, Ingrid Wuerth

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article uses three sets of cases from the War of 1812 to illustrate three problems with how modern courts have approached the detention of "enemy combatants" in the United States. The War of 1812 cases show that modern courts have relied too heavily on deference-based reasoning, and have failed to adequately consider both international law and congressional authorization when upholding the detentions as constitutional. The War of 1812, termed "Mr. Madison's War" by contemporary opponents, was fought largely on our own territory against a powerful foreign enemy, making it an especially rich source for comparison to the modern war …

Unfunding Terror - Perspectives On Unfunding Terror (Panel One), Jimmy Gurule

Journal Articles

According to the FBI, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that claimed the lives of 2,973 innocent civilians required as much as $500,000 to stage. At the time, al Qaeda, the jihadi terrorist organization responsible for the mass killings, was operating on an annual budget between $30 and $50 million. However, despite the obvious fact that terrorists need money to support their terrorist operations and organizational infrastructure, prior to 9/11, preventing the financing of terrorism was not a priority for the United States or international community. Moreover, a comprehensive legal framework to …

The Unitary Executive During The Third Half-Century, 1889-1945, Christopher S. Yoo, Steven G. Calabresi, Laurence D. Nee

All Faculty Scholarship

Recent Supreme Court decisions and the impeachment of President Clinton has reinvigorated the debate over Congress's authority to employ devices such as special counsels and independent agencies to restrict the President's control over the administration of the law. The initial debate focused on whether the Constitution rejected the executive by committee employed by the Articles of the Confederation in favor of a unitary executive, in which all administrative authority is centralized in the President. More recently, the debate has begun to turn towards historical practices. Some scholars have suggested that independent agencies and special counsels have become such established features …

Executive And Judicial Overreaction In The Guantanamo Cases, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush and Al-Odah v. United States held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detentions via writs of habeas corpus. Justice Stevens' majority opinion held that "the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing." This holding is potentially unbounded, perhaps enabling someone detained at Kandahar or even Diego Garcia to challenge his detention via the great writ. It appears to be a striking break from the 1950 Johnson v. Eisentrager decision, which strongly intimated that …

Settling The Wilderness, Sarah Krakoff

Publications

No abstract provided.