SelectedWorks @ Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Not a member yet
699 research outputs found
Sort by
A Legislative History of Article I, Section 27 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
No full textPleading Guilty While Claiming Innocence: Reconsidering the Mysterious Alford Plea
No full textNorth Carolina v. Alford is one of the most interesting, but least understood, cases in the area of criminal procedure. In Alford, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant who had testified under oath that he did not commit the crime and thereafter continued to profess his innocence would be permitted to plead guilty to murder. The plea was entered by the defendant to avoid the death penalty
Property Law
No full textAn innovative Property casebook that re-imagines the law school casebook format. Covering all the major topics included in a basic 1L Property course, Property Law looks more like an undergraduate textbook than a traditional law school casebook, making use of sidebars, illustrations, and other design devices to present material more clearly. The authors present concepts simply, then move the discussion toward complexity--the opposite of the approach taken by many current texts
A Practical Guide to Using Repo Master Agreements
No full textThis new 2nd edition offers readers a detailed guide on the most broadly used European and US repo master agreements all in one book. A comprehensive guide which also includes a summary of recent developments in the European and US repo markets since 2012
Removing the Distraction of Delay
No full textImmigration adjudication is in an awkward position. There is an intricate system to adjudicate immigration removal (deportation) cases, but that system is hindered by restrictions, and the constant threat of further restrictions, that reflect distaste for providing process to foreign nationals facing removal. There is a push and pull phenomenon, with immigration adjudication stretched uncomfortably in between two forces. On the one side, there is a push to apply common notions of due process to immigration removal cases, to push that the same concepts of procedural justice should apply in immigration cases as they would in any other context. On the other side, there is a pull away from those common conceptions and a belief that less process is not only acceptable, but also preferable when it comes to foreign nationals facing removal.
One often stated justification for cutting back on access to justice in the immigration removal context is that providing access to justice gives foreign nationals means to delay removal. This stated concern about delay places the blame on individual foreign nationals, and their attorneys, for accessing justice. It promotes the idea that foreign nationals seek review for less than honorable reasons, and that therefore court access must be curtailed.
This article argues that the delay rationale is window dressing for a much deeper disagreement about the role of individual rights in immigration law. The delay rationale rests upon, and promotes, a conception of national sovereignty that places the will of the national government above all else in the context of immigration law. Once the disagreement about individual rights is revealed, this article argues, there is a need to eliminate the delay distraction. The debate should be held along the terms of the role of individual rights in immigration law, rather than placing the blame on foreign nationals and their attorneys for seeking access to justice.
The debate about the role of individual rights is essential, but the experience of the United Kingdom shows that formal legal resolution of the question is not enough to ease immigration adjudication from its awkward position. The experience of the United Kingdom shows that it is also necessary to change public perception of what government power should be in immigration law. The United Kingdom has incorporated into its domestic law international obligations that recognize a more modern notion of sovereignty that respects the individual. In the United Kingdom, however, there is still a fierce battle about immigration adjudication. Arguments about delay are still raised to promote limits on process. The lack of a cultural progression, despite formal legal acknowledgement, has left immigration adjudication in the United Kingdom still subject to efforts to restrict access to justice. The lesson for the United States is that a cultural shift must accompany any formal legal resolution
Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Examination and Implications
No full textIn Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held unconstitutional major parts of Pennsylvania’s “Act 13”—a 2012 oil and gas law designed to facilitate the development of natural gas from Marcellus Shale. In so doing, the Court breathed new life into Article I, Section 27 of Pennsylvania’s constitution, which creates public rights in certain environmental amenities and requires the state to “conserve and maintain” public resources “for the benefit of all the people.” This paper describes the decision, explains some of its immediate implications in Pennsylvania, and also explains its importance for public environmental rights and environmental constitutionalism elsewhere
Legal Challenges in the Global Financial Crisis
No full textLegal Challenges in the Global Financial Crisis is the fruit of a conference held in Oxford in March 2012 that was organized by the Faculties of Law of the University of Oxford and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. The distinguished work of twelve experts and scholars drawn from the two Universities was, according to the editors, an effort to address the “gap in bridge-building” in understanding the Great Financial Crisis between the legal disciplines of constitutional law, financial markets regulation and European Law
Moving from Soft Law to Hard Law in the Derivative Area: A Case Study
No full textThe Changing Landscape of Global Financial Governance and the Role of Soft Law provides interdisciplinary perspectives on the changing landscape of global financial governance by exploring the impact and role of soft law, directly or as a precursor of hard law, pertaining to financial governance
A Response to the IPCC Fifth Assessment
No full textThis collection of essays is the initial product of the second meeting of the Environmental Law Collaborative, a group of environmental law scholars that meet to discuss important and timely environmental issues. Here, the group provides an array of perspectives arising from the Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each scholar chose one passage from one of the IPCC’s three Summaries for Policymakers as a jumping-off point for exploring climate change issues and responding directly to the reports. The result is a variety of viewpoints on the future of how law relates to climate change, a result that is the product not only of each scholar’s individual knowledge but also of the group’s robust discussion