The Constitutional Challenge To Teacher Tenure,
2016
University of South Carolina - Columbia
The Constitutional Challenge To Teacher Tenure, Derek W. Black
Faculty Publications
In 2012, education reformers theorized a novel constitutional strategy to eliminate tenure. They argued that tenure leads to the retention of ineffective teachers, and that ineffective teaching deprives students of the constitutional right to education embedded in state constitutions. This theory immediately caught hold, with a California trial court striking down tenure in 2014 and litigation commencing in other states weeks thereafter.
The outcome of this litigation movement will determine both the future of the teaching profession and the scope of the constitutional right to education. To date, however, no high court or scholar has thoroughly analyzed the theory. This …
Privacy Petitions And Institutional Legitimacy,
2016
Florida State University College of Law
Privacy Petitions And Institutional Legitimacy, Lauren Henry Scholz
Scholarly Publications
This Article argues that a petitions process for privacy concerns arising from new technologies would substantially aid in gauging privacy social norms and legitimating regulation of new technologies. An accessible, transparent petitions process would empower individuals who have privacy concerns by making their proposals for change more visible. Moreover, data accumulated from such a petitions process would provide the requisite information to enable institutions to incorporate social norms into privacy policy development. Hearing and responding to privacy petitions would build trust with the public regarding the role of government and large companies in shaping the modern privacy technical infrastructure. This …
Incitement, Threats, And Constitutional Guarantees:
First Amendment Protections Pre- And Post-Elonis,
2016
Capital University Law School
Incitement, Threats, And Constitutional Guarantees: First Amendment Protections Pre- And Post-Elonis, Mark Strasser
The University of New Hampshire Law Review
[Excerpt] "While the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of expression, individuals issuing threats or advocating illegal conduct may be subject to punishment. What constitutes proscribable speech has long been evolving, and the recent jurisprudence suggests that First Amendment protections are more robust for advocacy of illegal conduct than for threats. Elonis v. United States provided the Court with a golden opportunity to clarify First Amendment threat jurisprudence; however, those hoping for an illuminating analysis cannot help but be disappointed. Part I of this Article discusses the developing First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the regulation of incitement, …
Myanmar- A New Law For A New Era,
2016
Singapore Management University
Myanmar- A New Law For A New Era, Mahdev Mohan
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
On 5 January, Myanmar’s parliament enacted the Arbitration Law 2016 – Union Parliament Act No. 5 of 2016 – which repeals and replaces the Myanmar Arbitration Act 1944 and represents an important step forward in creating a legal environment that is attractive for investment and commerce.
January 30, 2016: Journalism Under Attach—Again,
2016
Duquesne University
January 30, 2016: Journalism Under Attach—Again, Bruce Ledewitz
Hallowed Secularism
Blog post, “Journalism Under Attach—Again“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.
January 27, 2016: The End Of Trump,
2016
Duquesne University
January 27, 2016: The End Of Trump, Bruce Ledewitz
Hallowed Secularism
Blog post, “The End of Trump“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.
January 27, 2016: Don’T Fight Mistrust; Deepen It,
2016
Duquesne University
January 27, 2016: Don’T Fight Mistrust; Deepen It, Bruce Ledewitz
Hallowed Secularism
Blog post, “Don’t Fight Mistrust; Deepen It“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.
How The Tenth Amendment Saved The Constitution, Contradicts The Modern View Of Broad Federal Power, And Imposes Strict Limitations,
2016
Cleveland State University
How The Tenth Amendment Saved The Constitution, Contradicts The Modern View Of Broad Federal Power, And Imposes Strict Limitations, Steven T. Voigt
Et Cetera
This paper challenges the position that the Tenth Amendment merely states an abstract concept and has no place in constitutional interpretation. The history of the Tenth Amendment portrays a much greater significance for this amendment. Not only did the Tenth Amendment likely save the Constitution and preserve the union, but it imposed very real restraints on federal power. The implication for modern courts is that the Tenth Amendment cannot be ignored. Far from just stating a truism, it sets forth a constitutional rule of interpretation that must be applied whenever the scope of any federal power is examined.
The Erosion Of The Rule Of Law When A State Attorney General Refuses To Defend The Constitutionality Of Controversial Laws,
2016
Barry University School of Law
The Erosion Of The Rule Of Law When A State Attorney General Refuses To Defend The Constitutionality Of Controversial Laws, Rena M. Lindevaldsen
Barry Law Review
No abstract provided.
January 24, 2016: Secular Rites,
2016
Duquesne University
January 24, 2016: Secular Rites, Bruce Ledewitz
Hallowed Secularism
Blog post, “Secular Rites“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.
The First Amendment And The World,
2016
William & Mary Law School
Riley V. California And The Stickiness Principle,
2016
Duke Law
Riley V. California And The Stickiness Principle, Steven I. Friedland
Duke Law & Technology Review
In Fourth Amendment decisions, different concepts, facts and assumptions about reality are often tethered together by vocabulary and fact, creating a ‘Stickiness Principle.’ In particular, form and function historically were considered indistinguishable, not as separate factors. For example, “containers” carried things, “watches” told time, and “phones” were used to make voice calls. Advancing technology, though, began to fracture this identity and the broader Stickiness Principle. In June 2014, Riley v. California and its companion case, United States v. Wurie, offered the Supreme Court an opportunity to begin untethering form and function and dismantling the Stickiness Principle. Riley presented the question …
Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration Keynote Address: The Honorable Carlton W. Reeves, United States District Court For The Southern District Of Mississippi,
2016
Roger Williams University
Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration Keynote Address: The Honorable Carlton W. Reeves, United States District Court For The Southern District Of Mississippi, Roger Williams University School Of Law
School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events
No abstract provided.
Originalism And The Executive,
2016
Georgia State University College of Law
Originalism And The Executive, Neil Kinkopf
Faculty Publications By Year
No abstract provided.
January 17, 2016: The Push Back Against Ending Campaign Contribution Limits,
2016
Duquesne University
January 17, 2016: The Push Back Against Ending Campaign Contribution Limits, Bruce Ledewitz
Hallowed Secularism
Blog post, “The Push Back Against Ending Campaign Contribution Limits“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.
City Of Fernley V. State, Dep’T Of Tax, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 4 (January 14, 2016),
2016
Nevada Law Journal
City Of Fernley V. State, Dep’T Of Tax, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 4 (January 14, 2016), Daniel Ormsby
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that the Local Government Tax Distribution Account under NRS § 330.660 was general legislation, survived rational basis scrutiny, and therefore was not unconstitutional under Article 4, Sections 20 and 21 of the Nevada Constitution.
Book Review: The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind—And Changed The History Of Free Speech In America, By Thomas Healy,
2016
Osgoode Hall Law School of York University
Book Review: The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind—And Changed The History Of Free Speech In America, By Thomas Healy, Jamie Cameron
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
This is a book review of Healy, Thomas. The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed his Mind—and Changed the History of Free Speech in America. Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Co. 2013.
January 9, 2016: Lessons From New York,
2016
Duquesne University
January 9, 2016: Lessons From New York, Bruce Ledewitz
Hallowed Secularism
Blog post, “Lessons from New York“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.
Religious Institutionalism In A Canadian Context,
2016
McGill University
Religious Institutionalism In A Canadian Context, Victor M. Muñiz-Fraticelli, Lawrence David
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
Does freedom of religion protect religious institutions or does it only protect the individual religious conscience? Canadian jurisprudence after the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes a decidedly individualist turn, deliberately avoiding the question of the rights of religious institutions. This individualist focus neglects the historical trajectory of religious freedom, the social understanding of religious faith by religious adherents themselves, and the institutional structures in which religion emerges and develops (and through which it is ultimately protected). An institutional account of religious liberty can complement the individualist account, as it better explains the legal order, better …
The Absurd Logic Behind Florida’S Docs Vs. Glocks Law,
2016
University of Georgia School of Law
The Absurd Logic Behind Florida’S Docs Vs. Glocks Law, Dahlia Lithwick, Sonja R. West
Popular Media
This article published at Slate.com on January 8, 2016, reviews the Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida case in which the Florida legislature passed a law that bars health care workers from discussing or recording anything about their patients’ gun ownership or safety practices that could be deemed in bad faith, irrelevant, or harassing.
