Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Islamic law (2)
- Adjudication (1)
- Arab constitutionalism (1)
- Arab spring (1)
- Arab state (1)
-
- Best interest (1)
- City of Boerne (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Congress (1)
- Congruence and proportionality (1)
- Courts (1)
- Disability (1)
- Doctrinal analysis (1)
- Doctrine (1)
- Enforcement clause power (1)
- Formalism (1)
- Hate crimes (1)
- Islam (1)
- Islamic constitutionalism (1)
- Islamic state (1)
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1)
- Judicial decisionmaking (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Law & anthropology (1)
- Law & culture (1)
- Legal realism (1)
- Legal reasoning (1)
- Legal theory (1)
- Magic (1)
- National security (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Amici Curiae Thirteenth Amendment Scholars In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee And Affirmance, William M. Carter Jr., Dawinder S. Sidhu, Alexander Tsesis, Rebecca E. Zietlow
Brief Of Amici Curiae Thirteenth Amendment Scholars In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee And Affirmance, William M. Carter Jr., Dawinder S. Sidhu, Alexander Tsesis, Rebecca E. Zietlow
Amici Briefs
In the case of United States v. Hatch, the defendant in a hate crimes prosecution brought the first major challenge to the constitutionality of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. This amicus brief argues that the Act is constitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment.
The Persistence Of Proximate Cause: How Legal Doctrine Thrives On Skepticism, Jessie Allen
The Persistence Of Proximate Cause: How Legal Doctrine Thrives On Skepticism, Jessie Allen
Articles
This Article starts with a puzzle: Why is the doctrinal approach to “proximate cause” so resilient despite longstanding criticism? Proximate cause is a particularly extreme example of doctrine that limps along despite near universal consensus that it cannot actually determine legal outcomes. Why doesn’t that widely recognized indeterminacy disable proximate cause as a decision-making device? To address this puzzle, I pick up a cue from the legal realists, a group of skeptical lawyers, law professors, and judges, who, in the 1920s and 1930s, compared legal doctrine to ritual magic. I take that comparison seriously, perhaps more seriously, and definitely in …
The Arabs In The (Inter)National, Haider Ala Hamoudi
The Arabs In The (Inter)National, Haider Ala Hamoudi
Articles
This essay is a commentary on an article submitted by Professor Lama Abu-Odeh as part of a special symposium edition contained in Volume 10 of the Santa Clara Journal of International Law. In her piece, Professor Abu-Odeh builds on her earlier work respecting Islamic law but adds a new target to her sites, that of the study of national security. That is, we already knew Professor Abu-Odeh’s view of the typical Islamic law scholar. He is one who is focused either on the resurrection of the shari’a in some sort of reconstructed form or involved in a thoroughly misguided search …
Repugnancy In The Arab World, Haider Ala Hamoudi
Repugnancy In The Arab World, Haider Ala Hamoudi
Articles
“Repugnancy clauses” -- those constitutional provisions that, in language that varies from nation to nation, require legislation to conform to some core conception of Islam -- are all the rage these days. This clause, a relatively recent addition to many modern constitutions, has emerged as a central focus of academic writing on Muslim state constitutions generally, and on Arab constitutions in particular. Much of the attention it has received has been enlightening and erudite. Yet one aspect of the broader repugnancy discourse that deserves some attention is an important, often de facto, temporal limitation on the effect of the clause. …
Surrogate Decision-Making Standards For Guardians: Theory And Reality, Lawrence A. Frolik, Linda S. Whitton
Surrogate Decision-Making Standards For Guardians: Theory And Reality, Lawrence A. Frolik, Linda S. Whitton
Articles
This Article examines the theoretical and practical implications of the substituted judgment and best interest standards for decision making by guardians. After providing an overview of the current decision-making standards in guardianship statutes, the Article synthesizes theoretical debates about what these standards mean and whether they provide an effective paradigm for surrogate decision makers. The authors then use new survey data to offer conclusions about the degree to which the substituted judgment and best interest standards are understood and meaningfully applied by guardians.