SelectedWorks @ Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Not a member yet
1539 research outputs found
Sort by
Sovereignty Migrates in US and Mexican Law: Transnational Influences in Plenary Power and Non-Intervention
No full textMexico and the US exercise increasingly transnational, less absolute, sovereignty with respect to migration. This is evident in changes to Mexico’s norm of non-intervention (NIV) and the US’ plenary power doctrine (PPD), two doctrines sourced in international sovereignty. Both historically defined sovereign authority in absolute terms, avoiding any foreign influence or domestic limitation. NIV prohibits Mexican foreign relations from interfering in another state’s domestic affairs. Traditionally it barred a foreign policy on migrants in the US, leading to Mexico’s no policy on migrants. PPD labels immigration law as immune from judicial review because the political branches have complete, plenary, authority over it. Traditionally, PPD barred constitutional limitations to this migration authority.
Two events since 2001 inspire a transnational examination of changes in traditional sovereignty. First in Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that the plenary power is subject to important constitutional limitations. Second, Mexico actively lobbied US lawmakers for reforms to US immigration laws, an effort sometimes called the whole enchilada. These developments point to the opposite of each doctrine’s conclusion, that: there are constitutional limits to PPD and foreign relations may influence another state’s lawmaking.
This examination is presented in five sections which: transnationally analyze international migration, describe PPD and NIV’s foundations in absolute sovereignty, present Mexico’s active foreign relations on migrants, discuss the US Supreme Court’s use of the canon of avoidance to limit PPD, and conclude how these changes suggest a transnational influence in legal sovereignty conceptions
Copyright as Intellectual Property Privilege
No full textWe often call copyright a species of intellectual property, abbreviating it, IP. This brief paper suggests that we consider copyright as another sort of IP: an intellectual privilege. Though copyright doubtless has some property-like attributes, it more closely resembles a special statutory benefit than it does a right, general in nature and grounded in common law, deserving the title of property. To call copyright a privilege accurately reflects legal and popular usage, past and present. It moreover offers salutary policy results, protecting property\u27s good name and rebalancing the public choice pressures that drive copyright policy. We face a choice between two ways of thinking about, and talking about, copyright: As an intellectual property that authors and their assigns own, or as an intellectual privilege that they merely hold. Perhaps no label can fully capture the unique and protean nature of copyright. Recognizing it as form of intellectual privilege would, however, help to keep copyright within its proper legal limits
Symposium Introduction -- Miranda at 40: Applications in a Post-Enron, Post-9/11 World
No full textThe groundbreaking case of Miranda v. Arizona raise[d] questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. This Introduction to the 2007 Chapman Law Review Symposium summarizes the contemporary examination of Miranda\u27s influence, past and present, along with the continuing debate today. The experiences and precedents that have evolved in the past 40 years helps to explore the evolution of the criminal law and procedural dictates set forth in Miranda. Complications with custodial interrogation - and the impulses and incentives involved by both the interrogator and the interrogated - have long been an exploration in law, literature, and other forums. This Introduction sets the stage and summarizes the articles presented herein that provide a valuable contribution to the scholarship on Miranda\u27s evolution and its effects today. Thanks go to all the participants, including: The Honorable Edwin Meese III, Maurice Suh, Keith Bishop, Henry N. Butler, Sherri L. Burr, Marisa S. Cianciarulo, Russell Covey, M. Katherine Baird Darmer, Roman E. Darmer, Steven B. Duke, Jim Fleissner, Mark A. Godsey, Steve Goorvitch, Thomas E. Holliday, Sam Kamin, Linda Keller, Donald J. Kochan, Joan L. Larson, Jeremy M. Miller, Stephen F. Rohde, Lawrence Rosenthal, Ronald J. Rychlak, Paul Shechtman, Ronald Steiner, and J. Kelly Strader. The first panel addressed Miranda and the War on Terror. The second panel focused on Miranda and the Media. The third panel contemplated Miranda and Modern Practice. The final panel examined Miranda and Corporate Crime. Criminal law, criminal procedure, and constitutional law were all revolutionized by Miranda forty years ago, yet its evolution must continue to be discussed and examined