SelectedWorks @ Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Not a member yet
1539 research outputs found
Sort by
A Localist\u27s Case for Decentralizing Immigration Policy
No full textIn the past year, local governments have made a foray into the hotly debated arena of immigration law and policy by adopting laws to address illegal immigration in their respective jurisdictions. Courts have struck down many of these laws on the grounds that they are preempted pursuant to a traditional view of federalism. From a localist perspective, however, this is troubling for two reasons. First, traditional federalism fails to recognize local control and autonomy by insisting on treating local governments as mere arms of the state. Instead of the traditional two-tier, federal-state federalism model, localists favor a more modern view of federalism that envisions a third tier of an empowered, if not sovereign, local government. Second, even if localists accept the traditional model, local governments may be required by the federal government to enforce its immigration laws. This requirement would constitute an unfunded mandate that undermines local control and self-government. This paper will explore these tensions and argue that empowering local governments will stimulate more innovative policy-making in the immigration arena that may generate macro-level solutions for what is seen as an intractable problem
Teaching Professional Responsibility and Ethics
No full textThis article discusses the development of teaching legal ethics in light of the changes in the ethics rules over the years. The thesis is that many ethics rules reflect the needs of a cartel (the legal profession) to protect itself, rather than the need to protect the clients of lawyers. The author uses stories and examples to illustrate this thesis
Book Review: S. Lerner, Diamond: A Struggle for Justice in Louisiana\u27s Chemical Corridor
No full textCounterproductive and Counterintuitive Counterterrorism: The Post-September 11 Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers
No full textThis Article critiques U.S. counterterrorism measures that directly target refugees and asylum-seekers. The United States currently offers protection to individuals and families fleeing persecution through two programs: the overseas refugee resettlement program (available to refugees residing outside the United States) and the asylum system (available to those who apply for refugee protection on U.S. soil). Almost immediately after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States implemented a refugee resettlement moratorium that resulted in lengthy delays and the failure to resettle thousands of refugees previously cleared to enter the United States. Several years later, on May 11, 2005, Congress passed the Real ID Act, which included a section entitled Preventing Terrorists from Obtaining Relief from Removal that purported to reform the asylum system but in actuality was nothing more than an awkwardly-drafted codification of existing case law. Both anti-terrorism measures failed to appreciate that none of the September 11 hijackers were refugees, asylees, or asylum-seekers. Moreover, their implementation erroneously linked refugees and asylum seekers with terrorist attacks and mischaracterized the refugee resettlement program and asylum system as havens for suicide bombers. Finally, neither the resettlement moratorium nor the Real ID Act asylum provisions likely have had any significant impact on national security
Full Faith and Republican Guarantees: Gay Marriage, FMPA, and the Courts
No full textWhat difference does it make to your heterosexual marriage if I enter into a homosexual marriage? Such is the frequent rejoinder to claims that traditional marriage needs to be protected by state or federal law or even by a federal constitutional amendment. Here I explore answers to that rejoinder. Marriage may be an individual bond, but it is fostered by society because it also fulfills fundamental societal functions. Indeed, we have an unbelievably important example of unintended consequences from another profound change to this important societal institution: no-fault divorce. The United States did not embrace no-fault divorce until 1969, and the move to no-fault divorce has fundamentally changed the nature of marriage in the short time since it was made. There were a significant number of people who, at the time it was proposed, argued against no-fault divorce because it would change the nature of marriage. No-fault divorce, it was argued, would undermine the institution of marriage and the understanding of family, which has been an important foundation for civilized society. Feminist theorists, in particular, expressed concern about the economic consequences of no-fault divorce to women and their custodial children. The response then was much the same as it is now-it was what Justice Scalia described in the related context of nude dancing as the Thoreauvian \u27you-may-do-what-you-like-so-Iong-as-it-does-not-injure-someone-else\u27 beau ideal: How did the availability of no-fault divorce that might be utilized by others hurt your marriage? The move to no-fault divorce fundamentally changed the nature of marriage. The consequences of that change have been profound, even if not perfectly understood. The consequences of the latest push to disconnect marriage from either its procreative or parenting functions will, I predict, be equally profound, even if the full extent of those consequences cannot be predicted with any degree of scientific certainty
An Experimental Analysis of the Effects of Automated Mitigation Procedures on Investment and Prices in Wholesale Electricity Markets
No full text
Testimony on \u27Subprime Mortgage Market Turmoil: Examining the Role of Securitization\u27
No full textThis testimony, before the Senate Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investments, April 17, 2007, examines the role of securitization in the subprime market turmoil, describing how securitization atomized the lending process and turned over the de facto regulation of the subprime market to private entities such as rating agencies and investment banks. The testimony attributes the meltdown of the subprime market, the increased default rate and threat of rising foreclosures, as well as the difficulty of crafting an adequate response to that meltdown, to the effects of securitization. Securitization led to weakened and inconsistent underwriting standards and allowed many borrowers to obtain loans that, after a reset, the borrowers would be unable to repay and also be unable to refinance their way out of increasingly inappropriate loans. Securitization also decreases the discretion to modify the loan in meaningful ways to prevent foreclosure, as servicers of the loan are restricted by the pooling and servicing agreement and by their conflicting duties to different investors, leading to tranche warfare