Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- 11th amendment (1)
- Alden v Maine (1)
- Anti-loitering laws (1)
-
- Appellate jurisdiction (1)
- Article I (1)
- Chicago (1)
- Christian Scientists (1)
- Cincinnati (1)
- Civil Rights Act (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Commerce Clause Power (1)
- Confession (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional right to privacy (1)
- Criminal defendants (1)
- Death of children (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Discrimination in the workplace (1)
- Eleventh amendment (1)
- Equal Protection (1)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (1)
- Family (1)
- Federal constitution (1)
- Firmly rooted (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Freedom of religion (1)
- Fundamental right to loiter (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
The First Amendment's Petition Clause As An Alternative Basis For Challenging Voter Initiatives That Burden The Enactment Of Anti-Discrimination Protection For Gays, Lesbians, And Bisexuals, Kevin Francis O'Neill
The First Amendment's Petition Clause As An Alternative Basis For Challenging Voter Initiatives That Burden The Enactment Of Anti-Discrimination Protection For Gays, Lesbians, And Bisexuals, Kevin Francis O'Neill
Cleveland State Law Review
The purpose of my remarks today is to suggest that the First Amendment-specifically, the Petition Clause of the First Amendment provides an alternative basis for vindicating gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights in certain cases. At least in the context of voter initiatives that seek to abolish anti-discrimination protection for sexual orientation, the Petition Clause is a promising alternative to equal protection and substantive due process. My objective here was merely to plant a seed: to identify an alternative basis for vindicating the rights of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals-especially when combatting homophobic voter initiatives like those in Romer and Cincinnati. It's …
The Religious Liberty Protection Act: The Validity Of Using Congress' Commerce And Spending Powers To Protect Religion, Jennifer Dorton
The Religious Liberty Protection Act: The Validity Of Using Congress' Commerce And Spending Powers To Protect Religion, Jennifer Dorton
Cleveland State Law Review
Although the Religious Liberty Protection Act appears, on its face, to be simple, there are many constitutional issues which call into question the validity of the proposed bill. This note will focus on the constitutional problems of using Congress' commerce and spending powers to protect religion. It will examine the problem of attaching religious conditions to the States' receipt of federal funds, and the potential problem that may result from using the spending power to protect religious exercise. The note then turns to the commerce clause justification for the RLPA. It will point out the major flaw in using the …
Kass V. Kass, Blazing Legal Trails In The Field Of Human Reproductive Technology, Kelly Summers
Kass V. Kass, Blazing Legal Trails In The Field Of Human Reproductive Technology, Kelly Summers
Cleveland State Law Review
The decision in Kass illustrates a situation where well-founded common law contract principles were applied to a novel reproductive issue in order to respond to rapidly evolving technological progress. However, this legal dilemma presents a variable that warrants special attention. The parties involved in the case at hand struggled for control of a possible human life; Mrs. Kass hoped to preserve the pre-zygotes for future implantation attempts, and Mr. Kass sought to avoid the tribulations associated with compulsory parenthood. This Comment will evaluate the decisions rendered by both the Supreme Court of New York and the New York Court of …
Alden V. Maine And State Sovereign Immunity Original Intent Or An Intent Congenial To The Court's Desires, Jeffrey H. Canja
Alden V. Maine And State Sovereign Immunity Original Intent Or An Intent Congenial To The Court's Desires, Jeffrey H. Canja
Cleveland State Law Review
In Alden v. Maine the Supreme Court considered whether Congress, pursuant to its Article I powers, can subject a nonconsenting state to a private suit for damages in the state's own courts. Alternatively viewed, the question was whether a state has sovereign immunity which precludes such suits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Article I of the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to subject a nonconsenting state to a private suit for damages in the state's own courts. The decision represents a direct extension of the federalism developed by the Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, …
Iadimarco V. Runyon And Reverse Discrimination: Gaining Majority Support For Majority Plaintiffs, Maria A. Citeroni
Iadimarco V. Runyon And Reverse Discrimination: Gaining Majority Support For Majority Plaintiffs, Maria A. Citeroni
Cleveland State Law Review
This Note will argue that the Supreme Court should resolve the inconsistency within the federal system concerning the appropriate standard of proof in reverse discrimination disputes by adopting the reasoning set forth by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Section II will profile the history and purpose of Title VII, with emphasis on the "burden shifting" framework established by the Supreme Court to analyze claims of racial discrimination in the workplace. Section III will contrast the development of the "background circumstances" test applied by lower federal courts to discrimination claims brought by majority plaintiffs with the Supreme Court's recognition of …
The Gang's All Here: Anti-Loitering Laws In The Face Of City Of Chicago V. Morales, Robert Delchin
The Gang's All Here: Anti-Loitering Laws In The Face Of City Of Chicago V. Morales, Robert Delchin
Cleveland State Law Review
This Comment examines Morales and the Court's treatment of anti-gang loitering statutes under the vagueness doctrine. Part II examines the City of Chicago's attempt to tackle the problem of gangs terrorizing its citizens and how the Illinois courts dealt with the ordinance. Part III then examines the reasons for the United States Supreme Court invalidating the ordinance, with equal emphasis placed on all the Justice's opinions. Part IV then analyzes the implications of the Court's decision, criticizing the plurality's creation of a fimdamental right to loiter and demonstrating how the ordinance survives a vagueness challenge.
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
The Confrontation Clause: Statements Against Penal Interest As A Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exception, Amy N. Loth
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article will explore why these types of confessions, called self-inculpatory statements, should be admissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Part IIA of this Article will discuss the two-part test set forth in Ohio v. Roberts. Part IIB will address Lilly v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's first attempt to resolve whether statements against penal interest are sufficiently reliable to be admissible under the Confrontation Clause. Part IIB will also explore the distinction between self-inculpatory and non-self-inculpatory statements, what constitutes a "firmnly rooted" hearsay exception, and also the policy concerns behind creating a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception. Part …
Decide The Law, Clearly - A Reply To Judge Bettman, Ben Glassman
Decide The Law, Clearly - A Reply To Judge Bettman, Ben Glassman
Cleveland State Law Review
The Honorable Marianna Brown Bettman’s dilemma is roughly this: if a clause of a state constitution is worded similarly to a clause in the federal Constitution, how can a state court develop constitutional law? But in important respects, Judge Bettman's question reflects a misunderstanding of the law. This misunderstanding prevents her from identifying what is really at stake in cases like the one she describes. Judge Bettman seems to have misread Michigan v. Long. The Long Court laid out a clear test for determining the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over state cases where the grounds-federal or state-of the state court's …
Prosecution Of Christian Scientists: A Needed Protection For Children Or Insult Added To Injury, Daniel Vaillant
Prosecution Of Christian Scientists: A Needed Protection For Children Or Insult Added To Injury, Daniel Vaillant
Cleveland State Law Review
A young child is dead. The death occurred because the parents refused to take their child to a doctor. Now, ordinarily, this refusal to obtain medical attention for a dying child would result in immediate indictments against the parents for involuntary manslaughter. But what if the parents are Christian Scientists? This question of whether Scientists should be treated differently because of their faith is a very controversial one in America today. If we allow the Scientists to practice their religion without government interference, children who could be medically treated and possibly saved may die. If, on the other hand, we …