Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Gonzales: Protecting Against The “Tyranny Of Totalitarianism”, Rachel A. Van Cleave
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Gonzales: Protecting Against The “Tyranny Of Totalitarianism”, Rachel A. Van Cleave
Publications
People v. Gonzales involved an issue that continues to divide lawyers, judges, scholars, politicians, as well as the general public: how best to protect individuals from law enforcement conduct that violates constitutional protections? This question is particularly controversial in the context of a criminal case, since the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence often results in the alleged criminal going free. In Gonzales, the California Supreme Court was asked to adopt the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of constitutional rights. A majority of California Supreme Court justices answered this in the negative. Justice Carter disagreed, and his analysis provided …
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Crooker: An Early Step Towards Miranda Warnings And The Expansion Of The Fifth Amendment To Pre-Trial Confessions, Helen Y. Chang
Publications
By the middle of the 20th century, police interrogation of criminal suspects had developed into a fine art designed to extract confessions. The use of the “third degree,” otherwise known as the infliction of physical or mental suffering, was not uncommon. “[T]he most frequently utilized interrogation techniques have involved mental and psychological stratagems—trickery, deceit, deception, cajolery, subterfuge, chicanery, wheedling, false pretenses of sympathy, and various other artifices and ploys.” As the United States Supreme Court noted in its famous Miranda v. Arizona decision, this type of police interrogation involved “inherent compulsion,” was “inherently coercive,” “exact[ed] a heavy toll on individual …
Payroll Guarantee Association, Inc. V. The Board Of Education Of The San Francisco Unified School District: Denying Hecklers The Right To Veto Unpopular Speech, David Zizmor, Clifford Rechtschaffen
Payroll Guarantee Association, Inc. V. The Board Of Education Of The San Francisco Unified School District: Denying Hecklers The Right To Veto Unpopular Speech, David Zizmor, Clifford Rechtschaffen
Publications
Payroll Guarantee Association, Inc. v. The Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District dealt with a difficult balancing question in First Amendment jurisprudence: to what degree are the rights of a speaker espousing unpopular views protected when such speech engenders disruptive protests— protests which themselves constitute a form of speech? Are the free speech rights of the unpopular speaker paramount? Do opponents have the right to protest such speech to the point at which the protests are so disturbing that the speech cannot go forward, in effect giving opponents a “heckler’s veto?”
“The Hysteria Of Our Times”: Loyalty Oaths In California, Marc Stickgold
“The Hysteria Of Our Times”: Loyalty Oaths In California, Marc Stickgold
Publications
In the years following World War II, the United States government, as well as many of the states, including California, enacted an almost endless stream of laws designed to weed out, isolate, sanction, and punish anyone thought to share any ideas or associations that could be labeled subversive. This historical period, called the “American inquisition,” saw the enactment and enforcement of a wide variety of laws meant to accomplish these purposes. People were subject to criminal prosecution for their beliefs, associations or advocacy; denial of, or discharge from, employment; denial of government benefits or licenses; and exclusion from publicly funded …
Transformative Constitutionalism In South Africa: Creative Uses Of Constitutional Court Authority To Advance Substantive Justice, Eric Christiansen
Transformative Constitutionalism In South Africa: Creative Uses Of Constitutional Court Authority To Advance Substantive Justice, Eric Christiansen
Publications
In this Article, I will first discuss some easily overlooked constitutional tools for promoting greater social justice: the procedural provisions of the South African Constitution related to jurisdiction, access, remedies and constitutional interpretation. Following that, I will use three recent Constitutional Court cases to demonstrate the Court's creative (and promising) use of its judicial authority to advance substantive justice. By way of conclusion, I will elaborate on the meaning of these recent developments for the transformative agenda of South Africa and for other nations.
Richmond Medical Center For Women V. Herring: Prohibiting Partial Birth Abortion But Keeping Constitutional Rights Intact, Kathleen Morris
Richmond Medical Center For Women V. Herring: Prohibiting Partial Birth Abortion But Keeping Constitutional Rights Intact, Kathleen Morris
Publications
In Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Herring (Richmond Medical Center V), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Virginia's ban on partial birth abortion did not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion and was thus constitutional. The Virginia Partial Birth Infanticide Act specifically prohibits only the intact dilation and evacuation procedure. It further includes intent requirements and a life exception, which allow a physician to avoid liability in rare cases where an intended standard dilation and evacuation procedure inadvertently results in an intact partial delivery of the fetus. …