16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Race Without Racism: Religious School Curricula and the Race-Neutral Legacy of \u3cem\u3e Brown\u3c/em\u3e
Full text linkCurrent conversations about race and equity curricula in primary and secondary education exclude examining religious curricula because of their private classification. Yet, this omission prevents us from exploring how religious curricula might mirror the legal transformation of Brown’s racial equality legacy to constitutional race neutrality. This Article brings religious curricula into these conversations by specifically linking the Court’s race-neutral transformation of Brown to the way religious curricula frame discussions about race without racism. Throughout the Article, I argue that the Court’s transformation of Brown is not just a top-down legal framework but also a bottom-up educational ideology. By making this connection, this Article suggests that religious schools are relevant to the legacy of Brown in the present as well as the past.
This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction
\u3cem\u3eTedder\u3c/em\u3e\u27s Not Dead: What Process is Due to Suspended Elected Officials in Florida?
Full text linkThis Note argues that a proper interpretation of Florida law recognizes property interests in elected office as an integral factor to be considered when assessing what process is due to suspended elected officials. Part I provides an overview of the theoretical underpinnings and modern evolution of procedural due process and property interests, particularly as they relate to public employment and elected office. Part II contrasts historical case law in Florida where property rights were recognized with a curious line of emerging case law that finds no such rights. Part III investigates and refutes the flawed reasoning behind recent opinions that have rejected the argument that property interests exist in public office. Finally, Part IV considers what process is due to suspended elected officials in Florida and highlights the need to safeguard against the potential politicization of that process. Ultimately, this Note warns that without ensuring authentically quasi-judicial removal hearings, Florida risks depriving elected officials of their constitutionally protected property rights without affording them adequate due process of law.
This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction
The National Security of Inbound & Outbound Investment: Reforming CFIUS and FOCI
Full text linkThis Note examines the evolution and contemporary significance of regulatory frameworks guiding the involvement of private corporations in the U.S. national security regime and the regime’s regulation of inbound and outbound investments as they pertain to national security interests. This Note focuses primarily on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and Foreign Ownership Control or Influence (FOCI) as regulatory mechanisms. Originating from the Cold War and adapted to post-9/11 security concerns, the scope of national security has widened from the traditional defense and intelligence functions to a more all-encompassing interest, including economic policy and the actions of domestic corporations. Even though the national security regime has drawn criticism as being against the principles of the free market, the role played by CFIUS and FOCI underscores the need for national security protections in the face of economic globalization and the multinationalism of corporations. This Note advocates for a unified regulatory approach, bringing the functions of CFIUS and FOCI together to protect against foreign exploitation of critical industries. A reformed and integrated national security framework is crucial for maintaining U.S. technological and military superiority, ensuring strategic autonomy, and fostering innovation within a complex global landscape
Satanta and Big Tree
No full textTrial of Satanta and Big Tree, July 5 & 6, 1871. Pageant Trial, July 4 & 5, 1940.
The trial of Satanta and Big Tree in 1871 was the first instance the United States brought Indigenous American chiefs to trial in a state court. Indigenous American tribes such as the Kiowa, Comanche, and Kiowa-Apache had been confined to reservation lands in Oklahoma. In response to these restrictions, warriors persisted with raids into Texas. On May 18th, 1871, a wagon train led by Henry Warren was hauling supplies to army forts in the west of Texas. A small army group led by General George T. Sherman encountered the train and continued on to Fort Richardson. A war party led by the Kiowas and Comanches let the army group pass and then attacked the Warren wagon train, killing seven teamsters. The train\u27s survivors went to Fort Richardson and encountered General Sherman, who ordered the war party to be pursued and those responsible brought back. The Kiowa leaders, Satanta (White Bear), Ado-eete (Big Tree), and Satank (Sitting Bear) were arrested. Satank freed himself and attacked a guard during transportation to trial and was killed. Satanta and Big Tree were tried and convicted on seven counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. This sentence was later commuted.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/trials-exhibit/1028/thumbnail.jp
Aaron Burr
No full textLeft to right:
The Trial of Col. Aaron Burr on an Indictment for Treason: before the Circuit Court of the United States, held in Richmond, Virginia, May Term, 1807: Including the Arguments and Decisions on All the Motions Made during the Examination and Trial, and on the Motion for an Attachment against Gen. Wilkinson. Washington City: Printed by Westcott & Co., 1807-08.KF 223 .B8 C37 1807 v.3
Reports of the Trials of Colonel Aaron Burr, Late Vice President of the United States: for Treason, and for a Misdemeanor, in Preparing the Means of a Military Expedition against Mexico, a Territory of the King of Spain, with whom the United States were at Peace. Philadelphia: Published by Hopkins and Earle, 1808.KF223 .B8 R63 1808 v.1
In 1807 Aaron Burr, former vice president and the man who killed Alexander Hamilton during a duel in 1804, was arrested on orders from President Thomas Jefferson and indicted for treason. Burr had journeyed West after his term as vice-president. His accusers claimed he wanted to steal parts of the Louisiana Territory and Spanish lands to form a new independent nation. One of his partners, General James Wilkinson, sent a letter to Thomas Jefferson claiming that Burr intended to entice Western states to leave the Union and had the backing of England. This resulted in his arrest and subsequent trial, which was presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall. Burr was acquitted due to lack of evidence, as John Marshall did not view conspiracy without actions as sufficient.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/trials-exhibit/1026/thumbnail.jp
Carter Kaplan & Company Award
No full textFor outstanding scholarship in International Finance Law.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/studentplaques/1130/thumbnail.jp
Securing Americans\u27 Genetic Information: Privacy and National Security Concerns Surrounding 23andMe\u27s Bankruptcy Sale. Hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, 119th Congress, First Session.
No full textPower Struggle: The Disproportionate Burden State Surrogacy Requirements Impose upon Women
No full textThe use of gestational surrogacy as a means to grow a family is increasing each year as fertility rates decline and single individuals and same-sex couples seek to have children who are genetically related to them. The United States does not have a uniform law governing surrogacy, leaving states to enact their own. While twenty-four states in this country have passed legislation permitting surrogacy and twenty-four others allow surrogacy in practice, the vast majority of states impose laws or practices that unduly burden women. In particular, Louisiana has the most restrictive surrogacy regime in the country. The state’s gestational carrier contract mandates go far beyond its standard contract requirements and are especially burdensome for the female parties to the contract.
In a post-Dobbs world, the protection of threatened reproductive rights, including surrogacy, is most critical. Utilizing Louisiana as a case study, this Article examines the requirements imposed upon surrogates and intended mothers through the lens of traditional contract law and feminist legal theory. This Article advances the premise that states should amend their surrogacy laws to address the provisions that are unduly burdensome for the female parties to surrogacy contracts by (1) examining the seminal case that became a lightning rod for surrogacy opposition, (2) highlighting the surrogacy laws and practices in place in this country and abroad, and (3) advocating for specific revisions to discriminatory surrogacy laws with the goal of making the practice more equitable for women. This Article also offers the most up-to-date and comprehensive overview of surrogacy laws across the United States
The Article V Convention Threat Awakens: Looking Within, Abroad, and Ahead
No full textThe Convention of States (COS) movement likely represents the passionate factions that Founders, like Madison, warned against and should thus be taken seriously. COS is now practicing its Article V Convention simulations every few years so that when it reaches its threshold of captured state legislatures, its processes will be fine-tuned, and there will be no going back. Not only could COS one day succeed, as evidenced by their supporters reaching new heights of politics, but their concerns are also worth focusing on as they point to an American constitutional flaw. Their frenzy for change is misdirected, and they aim for changes that only align with one extreme of one political party. Instead, the American call for change, as highlighted by COS, should be addressed through the formal amendment process and a new “Subcommittee on Constitutional Change” that uses a national and international sharing of ideas to amend Article V’s procedures.
This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction