Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

Revolutionary Constitutionalism In The Era Of The Civil War And Reconstruction , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

The meaning and scope of the fourteenth amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 remain among the most controversial issues in American constitutional law. Professor Kaczorowski contends that the issues have generated more controversy than they warrant, in part because scholars analyzing the legislative history of the amendment and statute have approached their task with preconceptions reflecting twentieth century legal concerns. He argues that the most important question for the framers was whether national or state governments possessed primary authority to determine and secure the status and rights of American citizens. Relying on records of the congressional debates as …

Washington's Ballot Restriction For Minor Party Candidates: When Is A Primary Not A Primary?, Emily Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

Does Mississippi's System For Financing Public Schools From "School Lands" Violate Federal Law?, Richard B. Collins

Publications

No abstract provided.

Economic Analysis Of Liberty And Property: A Critique, Peter N. Simon

Publications

No abstract provided.

Reportability Of Exposure To The Aids Virus: An Equal Protection Analysis, Donna Costa

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Death At Any Cost: A Critique Of The Supreme Court's Recent Retreat From Its Death Penalty Standards, William S. Geimer

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Property And Personal Privacy: Interrelationship, Abandonment And Confusion In The Path Of Judicial Review, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 847 (1985), Kenneth Mott, Lovette Mott

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And Informational Privacy, Or How So-Called Conservatives Countenance Governmental Intrustion Into A Person's Private Affairs, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 871 (1985), Michael P. Seng

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The State Action Doctrine In State And Federal Courts, Hala Ayoub

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Back To The Laboratory With Peremptory Challenges: A Florida Response, James R. Jorgenson

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Parameters Of Constitutional Reconstruction: Slaughter-House, Cruikshank, And The Fourteenth Amendment, Robert C. Palmer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Desegregating The University Of Florida Law School: Virgil Hawkins V. The Florida Board Of Control, Darryl Paulson, Paul Hawkes

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Diverting The Course Of Colorado River: A Reconciliation Of Seventh Circuit Adaptations, 17 J. Marshall L. Rev. 49 (1984), Michael W. Pinsof, Richard A. Wolfe

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Illinois V. Gates: Probable Cause Redefined, 17 J. Marshall L. Rev. 335 (1984), James W. Reilley, Barry E. Witlin, Christine P. Curran

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

New Hearsay Exceptions For A Child's Statement Of Sexual Abuse, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1984), Glen Skoler

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substantive Due Process And The Scope Of Constitutional Torts, Michael L. Wells, Thomas A. Eaton

Scholarly Works

The thesis of this Article is that both the Supreme Court and its critics have failed to identify and confront the central issue presented by these due process constitutional tort cases. That issue is neither procedural fairness nor the choice between state and federal courts. It is deciding whether a government-inflicted injury to life, liberty, or property violates the substantive protections of the due process clauses and thereby warrants a constitutionally derived tort remedy. In Part II of this Article we examine the Supreme Court's decisions in this area, focusing primarily on Parratt v. Taylor. We demonstrate that neither Parratt …

Are Residential Quotas Constitutional?, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Due Process, Retroactivity, And The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act Of 1980: Congress' Arbitrary Means To A Legitimate End, Eric G. Menkes

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Section 9-504(3) Of The Uniform Commercial Code: A Question Of State Action And Procedural Due Process, Abe Rappaport

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Race And The Decision To Detain A Suspect, Sheri Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Due Process—Arkansas' Sunday Closing Law Is Declared Unconstitutionally Vague, Charles L. Kennon Iii

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Taking” A Constitutional Look At The State Bar Of Texas Proposal To Collect Interest On Attorney-Client Trust Accounts, Thomas E. Baker, Robert E. Wood Jr.

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Liberty And Property In The Supreme Court: A Defense Of Roth And Perry, Peter N. Simon

Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Constraints On The Admissibility Of Grand Jury Testimony: The Unavailable Witness, Confrontation, And Due Process, Barbara L. Strack

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Defendants, however, have raised serious constitutional objections to the introduction of grand jury testimony when the witness is unavailable to testify at trial. These claims have focused on the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment and the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Defendants have contended that the introduction of testimony from a grand jury proceeding which cannot be subjected to cross-examination fatally compromises the defendant's right to a fair trial. Lower courts are split over admitting grand jury testimony in these circumstances, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue. As a result, …

Mandatory Retirement And The Constitution: Challenging The Factual Basis Underlying Legislative Classifications, Vernon Townes Grizzard

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Involuntary Commitment: The Move Toward Dangerousness, 15 J. Marshall L. Rev. 83 (1982), Robert Weissbourd

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nineteenth Century Interpretations Of The Federal Contract Clause: The Transformation From Vested To Substantive Rights Against The State , James L. Kainen

Faculty Scholarship

During the early nineteenth century, the contract clause served as the fundamental source of federally protected rights against the state. Yet the Supreme Court gradually eased many of the restrictions on state power enforced in the contract clause cases while developing the doctrine of substantive due process after the Civil War. By the end of the nineteenth century, the due process clause had usurped the place of the contract clause as the centerpiece in litigation about individual rights. Most analyses of the history of federally protected rights against the state have emphasized the rise of substantive due process to the …

Selective Incorporation Revisited, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

In June 1960 Justice Brennan's separate opinion in Ohio ex re. Eaton v. Price' set forth what came to be the doctrinal foundation of the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution. Justice Brennan advocated adoption of what is now commonly described as the "selective incorporation" theory of the fourteenth amendment. That theory, simply put, holds that the fourteenth amendment's due process clause fully incorporates all of those guarantees of the Bill of Rights deemed to be fundamental and thereby makes those guarantees applicable to the states. During the decade that followed Ohio ex re. Eaton v. Price, the Court found incorporated …

Faces Without Features: The Surface Validity Of Criminal Inferences, Peter Lushing

Articles

The article critiques the Supreme Court's decision in County Court v. Allen, arguing that the Court's approach to evaluating instructed inferences in criminal cases undermines the integrity of the fact-finding process. The central concern is that the Court's methodology, which assesses inferences as applied rather than on their face, fails to address the potential irrationality of such inferences and the pressure they may exert on jurors to convict without thorough consideration of the evidence. The article advocates for a more rigorous standard to ensure the rationality and constitutionality of instructed inferences in criminal trials.

Constitutional Law - Fifth And Fourteenth Amendments - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Procedure In State Criminal Trials - Jury Instructions, Terry J. Trexler

Duquesne Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a state criminal trial judge has a constitutional obligation, on a defendant's request, to instruct a jury that no inference of guilt may be drawn from a defendant's failure to testify.

Carter v. Kentucky, 101 S. Ct. 1112 (1981).