Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Memorandum To Attorney General Edwin Meese Regarding Presidential Succession Under 3 U.S.C. § 19, Ralph W. Tarr, United States Department Of Justice. Office Of Legal Counsel.
Memorandum To Attorney General Edwin Meese Regarding Presidential Succession Under 3 U.S.C. § 19, Ralph W. Tarr, United States Department Of Justice. Office Of Legal Counsel.
Executive Branch Materials
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo on presidential succession under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, codified at 3 U.S.C. § 19. Roy E. Brownell II provided this document.
Stough V. Crenshaw Country Board Of Education: Parental Rights And Segregation Academies, Stuart Melnick
Stough V. Crenshaw Country Board Of Education: Parental Rights And Segregation Academies, Stuart Melnick
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The author of this student note explores a recent 11th Circuit decision in Strough v. Crenshaw Country Board of Education, which held that the state's proffered interests were not compelling, and therefore failed to override a fundamental right. In the case, a county school board forbid its employees from sending their children to private school, and the regulation was contested by two tenured teachers who sought to enroll their children in a private, racially segregated school. The court eventually found that a parent's right to educate their child was a fundamental right, and the policy reasons advanced by the school …
The Minneapolis Anti-Pornography Ordinance: A Valid Assertion Of Civil Rights?, Winifred Ann Sandler
The Minneapolis Anti-Pornography Ordinance: A Valid Assertion Of Civil Rights?, Winifred Ann Sandler
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The author of this student note examines a recent Minneapolis city ordinance that declares pornography to be both subordination of and a form of sex discrimination towards women. First Amendment proponents challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional. The author considers whether the state has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens from civil rights violations, and whether that interest can overcome first amendment rights. The author concludes that pornography is neither a civil rights violation, nor a category of unprotected speech.