Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (261)
- State and Local Government Law (248)
- Criminal Law (246)
- Law and Society (236)
- Courts (231)
-
- Other Law (230)
- Jurisprudence (227)
- Legislation (227)
- Human Rights Law (226)
- Legal History (225)
- Criminal Procedure (214)
- Law and Politics (214)
- Law and Race (213)
- Supreme Court of the United States (213)
- Legal Education (212)
- Jurisdiction (209)
- Legal Profession (209)
- Judges (208)
- Common Law (206)
- Evidence (206)
- First Amendment (206)
- Administrative Law (204)
- Labor and Employment Law (204)
- Law and Gender (204)
- Social Welfare Law (204)
- Property Law and Real Estate (202)
- Civil Law (201)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (201)
- Keyword
-
- Constitution (39)
- First Amendment (39)
- Law (25)
- Constitutional Law (23)
- Washington (22)
-
- Fourth Amendment (15)
- Seattle University Law Review (15)
- Thirteenth Amendment (15)
- Slavery (13)
- Seattle University (12)
- Privacy (11)
- Constitutional law (10)
- Criminal Law (10)
- Fifth Amendment (10)
- Search (10)
- Seizure (10)
- Supreme Court (10)
- Discrimination (9)
- Regulation (9)
- Evidence (8)
- Federalism (8)
- Fourteenth Amendment (8)
- Involuntary Servitude (8)
- Race (8)
- Commerce Clause (7)
- Constitutional Law casebooks (7)
- Original intent (7)
- Religion (7)
- SFFA (7)
- Affirmative Action (6)
Articles 451 - 454 of 454
Full-Text Articles in Constitutional Law
A Case For Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens And The First Amendment, Richard G. Birinyi
A Case For Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens And The First Amendment, Richard G. Birinyi
Seattle University Law Review
This comment discusses four of Justice Stevens's opinions that analyze first amendment issues. Two dissenting opinions in Splawn v. California and Smith v. United States deal expressly with obscenity, and reject the Court's present method of analysis. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. and Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation both develop a balancing approach to ascertain the constitutionality of government regulation of nonobscene offensive speech. The comment concludes that Justice Stevens correctly identifies the factors necessary to insure proper Court protection of speech interests.
Equal Protection And Welfare Legislation: The Need For A Principled Approach, Lynda D. Frazier
Equal Protection And Welfare Legislation: The Need For A Principled Approach, Lynda D. Frazier
Seattle University Law Review
The Supreme Court decision in Maher v. Roe, denying an equal protection claim to Medicaid payments for elective abortions, illustrates the Court's inconsistent application of minimal rationality standards to socioeconomic legislation. This comment analyzes Maher in light of recent irreconcilable Supreme Court decisions involving similar equal protection claims to welfare payments. It shows that the Court's standard of review vacillates between deferential abdication to the legislature and unexplained judicial interventionism, and concludes that until the Court adheres to a consistent and principled approach to minimal rationality review, equal protection will remain an area for unrestrained imposition of judicial, rather …
The Duty To Decide Vs. The Daedalian Doctrine Of Abstention, Harlan S. Abrahams, Brian E. Mattis
The Duty To Decide Vs. The Daedalian Doctrine Of Abstention, Harlan S. Abrahams, Brian E. Mattis
Seattle University Law Review
It is the thesis of this article that the growing trend in the federal courts to refuse to exercise their assigned jurisdiction violates the doctrine of the separation of powers, and that the federal judiciary's excuses for refusing to perform their tasks do not pass constitutional muster. Specifically, this article will demonstrate that those excuses either do not rise to a level of constitutional concern sufficient to justify the trend or are based on a perversion of the admittedly constitutional concept of federalism, a concept affording the individual citizen a structural protection against arbitrary government in additionto the structural protection …
Libel: Taskett V. King Broadcasting Co.--A New Washington Standard, Roy W. Kent
Libel: Taskett V. King Broadcasting Co.--A New Washington Standard, Roy W. Kent
Seattle University Law Review
In Taskett v. KING Broadcasting Co., the Washington Supreme Court reevaluated the constitutional limits on libel law with regard to private individuals involved in matters of public interest, and held that private individuals can recover damages "on a showing that in publishing the statement, the defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the statement was false." In adopting the reasonable care standard, the Washington Supreme Court sought to achieve an equitable balance between the media's first amendment rights of free speech and press and the state's interest in compensating private citizens for harm …