Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- African Americans (1)
- Beneficiaries (1)
- Benefits (1)
- Cohabitat (1)
-
- Congress (1)
- Constitutional violations (1)
- Constitutionality (1)
- Corporate tax (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Couples (1)
- Custodial interrogations (1)
- Department of Justice (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Familial status (1)
- Family status (1)
- Federal agencies (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- International tax (1)
- Legislative history (1)
- Lopez v. Monterey County (1)
- Marriage (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Miranda v. Arizona (1)
- Multinational enterprises (1)
- Police (1)
- Preclearance (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- Rehnquist (William) (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federalism, Preclearance, And The Rehnquist Court, Ellen D. Katz
Federalism, Preclearance, And The Rehnquist Court, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Lopez v. Monterey County is an odd decision. Justice O'Connor's majority opinion easily upholds the constitutionality of a broad construction of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in language reminiscent of the Warren Court. Acknowledging the "substantial 'federalism costs" resulting from the VRA's "federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking," Lopez recognizes that the Reconstruction Amendments "contemplate" this encroachment into realms "traditionally reserved to the States." Justice O'Connor affirms as constitutionally permissible the infringement that the section 5 preclearance process "by its nature" effects on state sovereignty, and applies section 5 broadly, holding the statute …
The U.S. Treasury's Subpart F Report: Plus Ça Change, Plus C'Est La Même Chose?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
The U.S. Treasury's Subpart F Report: Plus Ça Change, Plus C'Est La Même Chose?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
Articles
On 29 December 2000, the U.S. Treasury Department released its long-awaited study of Subpart F, entitled “The Deferral of Income Earned through U.S. Controlled Foreign Corporations." This study was commenced in the aftermath of the controversy that ensued from the issuance and subsequent withdrawal of Notice 98-11. The study was originally expected to be issued in 1999 in response to the report published that year by the National Foreign Trade Council, which advocated significant changes in Subpart F. The Treasury Study’s delayed issuance at the end of the Clinton Administration means that it only has (at best) persuasive force for …
For The Best Of Friends And For Lovers Of All Sorts, A Status Other Than Marriage (Symposium: Unmarried Partners And The Legacy Of Marvin V. Marvin)" , David L. Chambers
For The Best Of Friends And For Lovers Of All Sorts, A Status Other Than Marriage (Symposium: Unmarried Partners And The Legacy Of Marvin V. Marvin)" , David L. Chambers
Articles
American governments have recently begun to experiment with new familial statuses for gay male and lesbian couples, who have demanded the right to marry but have been appeased with more modest forms of recognition.4 What I propose here is quite different. It is a status for people who have close bonds but do not want to be married to each other. I call this status "designated friends." Once registered, "designated friends" would obtain a limited number of privileges and undertake a limited number of responsibilities relating to the care for the other when ill or incapacitated or upon death, but …
From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar
From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar
Articles
Once the Court granted [certiorari in Dickerson] court-watchers knew the hour had come. At long last the Court would have to either repudiate Miranda, repudiate the prophylactic-rule cases [the cases viewing Miranda's requirements as not rights protected by the Constitution, but merely "prophylactic rules"] or offer some ingenious reconciliation of the two lines of precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, doesn't "have to" do anything, as the decision in Dickerson once again reminds us.