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

Law Commons

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

Roger Williams University

Law Faculty Scholarship

United States Supreme Court

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

United States V. Castleman: The Meaning Of Domestic Violence, Emily J. Sack Jan 2015

United States V. Castleman: The Meaning Of Domestic Violence, Emily J. Sack

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Equality In Germany And The United States, Edward J. Eberle Jan 2008

Equality In Germany And The United States, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Free Exercise Of Religion In Germany And The United States, Edward J. Eberle Mar 2004

Free Exercise Of Religion In Germany And The United States, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, Professor Edward Eberle provides a comparative overview of constitutional safeguards affecting religious freedom in Germany and the United States. Specifically the author analyzes the German and American approaches to the free exercise of religion within their respective constitutional systems. The result is an illuminating exposition that provides much insight for comparative and constitutional scholars.

In the years following the Second World War, religious freedoms in Germany developed along similar, individualist paths to those found in the United States Constitution. However, unlike the Constitution, the Basic Law's provisions touching on religious liberty are detailed and quite elaborate and …


Hate Speech, Offensive Speech, And Public Discourse In America, Edward J. Eberle Jan 1994

Hate Speech, Offensive Speech, And Public Discourse In America, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

In this article, Professor Eberle discusses several limitations on governmental power to regulate public discourse. After examining the United States Supreme Court decisions of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paula nd Wisconsin v. Mitchell, Professor Eberle concludes that government should refrain from regulating speech itself. Rather, any restrictions should focus strictly on the problematic conduct underlying the speech which justifies regulation. Professor Eberle also concludes that the Court has implicitly recognized two distinct subcategories of "content" discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. Both subcategories are presumptively unconstitutional and nominally subject to conventional strict scrutiny. The Court, however, finds viewpoint discrimination more dangerous …