Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Symposium: Federalism's Future, Jeffrey R. Pettit
Symposium: Federalism's Future, Jeffrey R. Pettit
Vanderbilt Law Review
Two years have passed since my predecessor, Mike Smith, sat in Professor Barry Friedman's office to begin choosing a topic for the Symposium that now sits before you. Although choosing a topic for a symposium two years in advance of its occurrence can be a difficult task, the topic they agreed upon, Federalism's Future, transcends the risk of becoming outdated. If the Supreme Court's struggle to articulate a "reasoned principle" in balancing the powers and responsibilities of our state and federal governments in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, and later in New York v. United States,2 is any …
Why The Supreme Court Overruled "National League Of Cities", Mark Tushnet
Why The Supreme Court Overruled "National League Of Cities", Mark Tushnet
Vanderbilt Law Review
We are now in the midst of a confused era for federalism doctrine. A court of appeals has read the Supreme Court's precedents for at least as much as they are worth in holding that Congress, in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, exceeded the power the Commerce Clause grants it., The Supreme Court itself has been unable to develop a stable constitutional doctrine about the roles of Congress and the courts in protecting federalism. Every time the Supreme Court has wandered into the federalism forest, it has gotten lost. For a while, scholars believed we understood why. …
Factors For Reasonable Suspicion: When Black And Poor Means Stopped And Frisked, David A. Harris
Factors For Reasonable Suspicion: When Black And Poor Means Stopped And Frisked, David A. Harris
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
R.A.V. V. City Of St. Paul: The Continuing Confusion Of The Fighting Words Doctrine, Melody L. Hurdle
R.A.V. V. City Of St. Paul: The Continuing Confusion Of The Fighting Words Doctrine, Melody L. Hurdle
Vanderbilt Law Review
Communication contributes to the marketplace of ideasI which is the only way to promote the discovery of truth in society. The importance of communication has led the United States Supreme Court to herald freedom of expression as "the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." Indeed, the Court protects few other constitutional rights with such fervor. First Amendment protection is not absolute, however, and the United States Supreme Court consistently has asserted that certain forms or classes of expression may be regulated without violating the Constitution. Generally speaking, the Court has carved exceptions to First Amendment …
The New Law Of Murder, Daniel Givelber
The Title Vii Pretext Question: Resolved In Light Of St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, Robert J. Smith
The Title Vii Pretext Question: Resolved In Light Of St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, Robert J. Smith
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court And Local Government Law 1993-94 Term: Introduction, Howard Glickstein
The Supreme Court And Local Government Law 1993-94 Term: Introduction, Howard Glickstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The 1993 Revision Of Federal Rule 11, Carl Tobias
The 1993 Revision Of Federal Rule 11, Carl Tobias
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Coconspirator Statements And Former Testimony In New York And Federal Courts With Some Comments On Codification, Randolph N. Jonakait
Coconspirator Statements And Former Testimony In New York And Federal Courts With Some Comments On Codification, Randolph N. Jonakait
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The First Amendment: When The Government Must Make Content-Based Choices, Erwin Chemerinsky
The First Amendment: When The Government Must Make Content-Based Choices, Erwin Chemerinsky
Cleveland State Law Review
Thus, I focus my attention on the problem of the First Amendment when the government must make content-based choices. I want to divide my remarks into four parts. I begin by reviewing the traditional bedrock rule of the First Amendment: The government cannot regulate speech based on its content. Second, I identify a broad range of cases where this rule cannot apply because the government must make content-based choices. Third, I suggest that the usual First Amendment principles are not helpful in analyzing these cases. Finally, I offer some initial thoughts about directions for dealing with this problem.