556 research outputs found
Sort by
Why Cant We Be Friends Preserving Public Confidence in the Judiciary through Limited Use of Social Networking
Get PDFThe Potential for Abuse in Developer-Controlled Community Development Districts
Get PDFThe scope of this article is to discuss Florida Community Development Districts and their potential for abuse and mismanagement on the part of the developers that control them through the developer elected boards of supervisors (boards). This article will discuss the various statutes that control both the districts and their respective boards. In addition, this article will recommend changes to certain sections of those statutes to better protect the residents, who are subject to the districts’ control, from developers who put profit and personal gain above the best interests of the districts they control and the districts’ residents, who have little or no recourse in challenging decisions of the developer controlled boards
Gauging the Gender Divide in the Middle East’s Educational System: Causes, Concerns, and the Impetus for Change
Get PDFTwenty-Five Years After Baby M: How Rules Can Bring Certainty To The World of Surrogacy Contracts
Get PDFClimate Regulation as if the Planet Matters: The Earth Jurisprudence approach to Climate Change
Get PDFIt is now beyond doubt that humans are having an enormously detrimental impact on the natural world. In the face of the incredible environmental challenges we face, new and radical ideas have emerged about how we should regulate human behavior. This paper briefly focuses on the failure of current legal regimes to address climate change, and considers how climate governance would look under the Earth Jurisprudence approach: setting our laws within the context of fundamental principles of ecology and planetary boundaries. Consideration is given to how existing legal concepts could be used to achieve this vision. The paper concludes that a reframing of climate governance according to the Earth Jurisprudence approach is possible by changing the underlying principles and place of governance; expanding our conception of rights to cover natural systems; re-localizing governance; and lessening our reliance on markets, instead using the law to respect, rather than commodify, nature
Land Ethic Under Attack: Keystone XL and the War Over Domestic S(OIL)
Get PDFThe Keystone XL pipeline has caused recent controversy and renewed the debate over the future of fossil fuels in the United States. The project pits largely conservative groups, who argue that the pipeline will create jobs and decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil, against environmental advocates, indigenous tribes, and private landowners, who are attempting to fend off the project because they believe it will displace them of their own lands as well as disrupt the natural ecosystems that lay in the pipeline’s path. In the wake of a presidential veto of the project and renewed sentiment by the pipeline’s manufacturer to move forward with the project by an alternative route, public outcry as to the safety of the pipeline and the environmental consequences of continued exploitation of the Canadian tar sands has increased.
This article analyzes the Keystone XL pipeline project through the lens of Earth Jurisprudence: a growing movement in the United States focused on changing the way humans view the environment when confronted with political and legal decisions that have direct and often adverse affects on the Earth. The teachings of Aldo Leopold and Thomas Berry encourage humans to re-imagine the legal system in a manner that broadens its focus to include current and future generations of humans, plants, animals, and ecosystems as equal parts of the whole rather than a chain of command where humans reign supreme. This article discusses several concepts and principles that are based upon or derived from the earth jurisprudence movement and applies these concepts to recent events surrounding the Keystone XL project. Ultimately, the author seeks to show readers that the Keystone XL pipeline is a temporary fix to America’s problems and the risks associated with the project will cause irreparable political, economic, and environmental harm that will be felt for generations to come
What\u27s Religion Got to Do With It? Virtually Nothing: Hosanna-Tabor and the Unbridled Power of the Ministerial Exemption
Get PDFInstrumentalist and Holmesian Voices in the Rhetoric of Reapportionment: The Opinions of Justices Brennan and Frankfurter in Baker v. Carr
Get PDFIn his autobiography, Chief Justice Earl Warren described Baker v.Carr as “the most important case of [his] tenure on the Court.” Following Brown v. Board of Education by eight years, Baker was the second “blockbuster” case of the Warren Court. Warren felt that, if the progeny of Baker had preceded Brown, Brown would have been unnecessary. As with other major Supreme Court cases, Baker featured rhetoric from highly influential justices, two of whom in this case were Justice William Brennan and Justice Felix Frankfurter. Justice Brennan would write the groundbreaking opinion for the Court that would be part of “the critical mass of the Brennan legacy.” Justice Frankfurter would write a scathing dissent that would defend the status quo staunchly. Although the case contained various opinions, the opinions of Brennan and Frankfurter were particularly important, especially because of how well they contrasted the respective judicial philosophies of their authors. Brennan’s instrumentalist philosophy in the majority opinion looked to use the federal courts to promote justice for urban voters, while Frankfurter’s Holmesian philosophy in a lengthy dissent aimed to pass the problem of fair representation along to Congress for resolution. This article takes a retrospective look at how the two differing judicial philosophies of Brennan and Frankfurter, instrumentalist and Holmesian in nature, vied to influence the outcome of Baker v. Carr. To do so, the article initially provides an overview of four major judicial philosophies, including instrumentalism, Holmesianism, formalism, and natural law. Consideration of all four judicial philosophies provides for a more thorough understanding of instrumentalism and Holmesianism. Next, the article offers background on the Baker case. After offering background on the case, the article identifies the various philosophical ingredients at work in the opinions of Brennan and Frankfurter. Finally, the article makes some observations regarding the judicial philosophies at work in the two main opinions in Baker
Reforming the Immigration Courts of the United States: Why is There No Will to Make It an Article I Court?
Get PDFThis article strongly reaffirms the author\u27s support for the use of asylum as a way of providing justice for those fleeing persecution from other countries. Additionally, this article was written to help educate those interested in asylum law by providing some history and background on asylum. Part II of the article briefly discusses the history of asylum; enumerates the eligibility requirements for asylum; describes court proceedings in asylum cases; recounts recent statistics on grants of asylum; and also includes a brief history of our immigration courts. Part III examines the six significant problem areas our immigration courts have wrestled with during the last decade with respect to asylum caseloads. Finally, Part IV examines a few of the proposals put forth over the last thirty years to transform the immigration court system into an Article I Legislative Court
E Pluribus Unum: Liberalism\u27s March To Be the Singular Influence on Civil Rights at the Supreme Court
Get PDFThis article seeks to apply Rogers Smith’s Multiple Traditions thesis to the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of the Fourteenth Amendment to uncover the influences behind its major civil rights decisions. It will argue that liberalism dominates at the Court after mostly, but not completely, shedding its illiberal tendencies. This article will argue that the Court’s focus on intent over impact and its “color-blind” approach to racial classifications in the era of subterranean prejudice and indifference or ignorance to inequality solidifies and perpetuates the hierarchies created by ascriptive forms of Americanism under the Court’s liberal notions. This article will also discuss how liberal conceptions of rights are the driving force behind the Court’s jurisprudence. Under this analysis, landmark civil rights decisions appearing to vindicate principles of equality under both the Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process Clauses are better understood as a validation of individual rights in an unregulated market economy