Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (4)
- United States (3)
- 9/11 (2)
- Al-Qaeda (2)
- California (2)
-
- California Supreme Court (2)
- Campaign (2)
- Constitution (2)
- Finance (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- International law (2)
- Law of armed conflict (2)
- Law of war (2)
- Ninth Circuit (2)
- Non international armed conflict (2)
- September 11 (2)
- Speech (2)
- Taliban (2)
- AUMF (1)
- Afghanistan (1)
- Armed conflict (1)
- Arrest (1)
- Authority (1)
- Authorization of Use of Military Force (1)
- Bill of Rights (1)
- Board of Immigration Appeals (1)
- Buckley (1)
- Burroughs (1)
- CSPA (1)
- California Constitution (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Balancing Disclosure And Privacy Interests In Campaign Finance, Sarah Harding
Balancing Disclosure And Privacy Interests In Campaign Finance, Sarah Harding
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
The law of campaign finance pits two important First Amendment interests against each other: disclosure and privacy. The Supreme Court has recognized the need to balance these two interests to allow for effective elections and to safeguard individual rights. However, through the years the Court has failed to balance these interests equally, resulting in vacillating decisions that unfairly sacrifice one for the other. From Burroughs v. United States in 1934 to Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, the Court has failed to provide a workable roadmap for legislatures in the creation of campaign finance disclosure laws and for lower courts …
When Rhetoric Obscures Reality: The Definition Of Corruption And Its Shortcomings, Jessica Medina
When Rhetoric Obscures Reality: The Definition Of Corruption And Its Shortcomings, Jessica Medina
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Due to public scorn after the unraveling of the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s restrictions on political contributions and expenditures. Buckley v. Valeo established that no legitimate government interest existed to justify restrictions on campaign expenditures, and only the prevention of corruption or the appearance of corruption could justify restrictions on campaign contributions. Since then, the Court has struggled to articulate a definition of corruption that balances First Amendment protections with the potential for improper influence. This Article argues that the Court’s current definition of corruption is too narrow, and proposes …
The Boundless War: Challenging The Notion Of A Global Armed Conflict Against Al-Qaeda And Its Affiliates, Andrew Beshai
The Boundless War: Challenging The Notion Of A Global Armed Conflict Against Al-Qaeda And Its Affiliates, Andrew Beshai
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
The U.S. military response to the 9/11 attacks has expanded into a “global war” without a definite geographic scope. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have executed attacks in several countries including Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen under the “global war” paradigm. This Article challenges the concept of a global armed conflict, instead favoring the “epicenter-of-hostilities” framework for determining the legality of military action against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups. This approach, rooted in established international law, measures the existence of specific criteria in each nation where hostile forces are present to determine if an armed conflict in …
The Ndaa, Aumf, And Citizens Detained Away From The Theater Of War: Sounding A Clarion Call For A Clear Statement Rule, Diana Cho
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In the armed conflict resulting from the September 11 attacks, the executive authority to order the indefinite detention of citizens captured away from the theater of war is an issue of foreign and domestic significance. The relevant law of armed conflict provisions relevant to conflicts that are international or non-international in nature, however, do not fully address this issue. Congress also intentionally left the question of administrative orders of citizen detainment unresolved in a controversial provision of the 2012 version of the annually-enacted National Defense Authorization Act. While plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama sought to challenge the enforceability of NDAA’s …
Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein
Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
"Following-To-Join" The Fifth And Ninth Circuits: Why The Supreme Court In Scialabba V. Cuellar De Osorio Erred In Interpreting The Child Status Protection Act, Justin Youngs
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner
Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.
The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …