1412 research outputs found
Sort by
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 48-3-601 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111: A Putative Father\u27s Right to Be a Father
No full textAn absent and uninterested father should not be able to withhold consent to a child\u27s adoption to the detriment of the mother. However, when the father is genuinely unaware of the child\u27s existence, through deceit of the mother or lack of communication, he is not being afforded the chance to be interested As it now stands, North Carolina adoption law is distressingly inadequate because it does not provide any recourse for biological fathers in situations like this. The law is too strict and statutory construction forces courts to apply the plain meaning of the statute rather than what is \u27lust and consistent with the intended purpose of the Chapters. Fathers in these situations should not automatically lose their parental rights. Although the negative results are isolated to a very narrow group of men, the effects are so catastrophic that it is worth our attention. This Comment explores solutions in the form of amendments to North Carolina General Statute section 48-3-601 and North Carolina General Statute section 7B- 1111
Just Around the Riverbed: Reconciling Navigability Rules in North Carolina
Get PDFEntrenched in the common law, North Carolina\u27s public trust doctrine applies to waterways and their underlying riverbeds-protecting them from misuse and adverse possession-so long as the waterways are navigable in fact. In North Carolina v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit veered away from the North Carolina common law rules governing navigability and instead applied the more stringent federal test. The differences between the current North Carolina common law and federal navigability tests for waterways illustrate the state\u27s sovereign interests, and why the Fourth Circuit erred in applying the federal regime. This Comment explores the present and future ramifications of the Alcoa decision on public trust jurisprudence in North Carolina and other original states.
Public trust doctrine cases implicate unique choice of law considerations. By disregarding common law precedent dating back to the American Revolution, the Fourth Circuit\u27s decision disrupts the delicate balance of federalism between state and federal courts. The present consequences of the Fourth Circuit\u27s decision include public policy concerns and clouded land titles in North Carolina. The future ramifications include an expansion of federal question jurisdiction and an upheaval of common law navigability rules in the original thirteen states
My Lai Massacre
No full textThe My Lai Massacre is one of the gravest violations of criminal law ever committed by a US military soldier. Over 100 innocent civilians, including women and infants, were murdered at the hands of Army First Lieutenant William Calley Jr. and his subordinates. The situation presents an extreme example of the dichotomy between obedience to orders and obedience to international and criminal law. Calley was ultimately convicted of his crimes in a military court. His sentence was reduced from life in prison to 10 years\u27 confinement. He was the only person held criminally responsible for the murder of civilians in My Lai, Vietnam
The Administrative State: Congress\u27s Role in Perpetuating It
Get PDFFor many Americans, the rise of the administrative state signaled the deterioration of the framers\u27 vision for American government. Gone are the days where the Legislative Branch primarily enacted laws, the Executive Branch enforced laws, and the Judicial Branch interpreted laws and adjudicated disputes. Today, the American form of government is an administrative state. Agencies possess legislative, executive, and judicial powers and wield those powers to administer critical government programs-often at the directive of the Executive Branch.
Scholars have repeatedly criticized the evolution of the administrative state as unlawful, unconstitutional, and have even gone so far as to call it a bloodless constitutional revolution. But who is to blame for the creation of the administrative state? Does the blame fall on Franklin Roosevelt\u27s New Deal? There is no doubt that the growth of the administrative state can be traced, for the most part, to the New Deal, but perhaps the New Deal merely served as the occasion for implementing the ideas of America\u27s Progressives.
This Comment argues that Congress has primarily contributed to the growth and empowerment of the administrative state. Not merely through the traditional process of creating administrative agencies, but through Congress\u27s abdication of its legislative power to the President, who in turn utilizes the administrative agencies as tools to do his bidding. This Comment further argues that once Congress has delegated its legislative power to the President, and the President has empowered the administrative state, the Judicial Branch generally defers to both the President and the administrative state. This has emboldened the administrative state and enabled it to flourish.
This Comment begins with a brief introduction of the historical principles underlying the American form of government and how, against the backdrop of the framers\u27 intent, the administrative state undermines these principles. Part I discusses a broad overview of the current administrative state. It specifically considers what roles Congress and the President have traditionally played in the administrative state. Part II discusses Trump v. Hawaii and the Trade Expansion Act. Both illustrate Congress \u27s abdication of its legislative power and the President\u27s use of that authority to empower the administrative state to act. Part III of the Comment discusses the two ways in which the judiciary branch acquiesces to actions taken by both the President and administrative agencies
Have Your Cake and Eat It Too: Cognitive Neurology and Negligence Law in North Carolina
Get PDFSometimes a new solution is the best way to fix an old problem. Currently, relying on a case from the early nineteenth century, North Carolina courts refuse to consider an individual\u27s cognitive disability when determining whether she acted reasonably in a negligence case. In other words, juries are instructed to hold a mentally disabled individual to the same duty of care they would use to judge an able-minded individual. Litigants are not allowed to discuss their clients\u27 mental disabilities. This puts a great perspective strain on mentally disabled individuals who are already among the most disenfranchised groups in America.
This Comment discusses using modern neurological mapping technology to present mental disabilities as physical disabilities, which advocates are permitted to submit to a jury. Therefore, the jury is not judging a cognitively disabled individual against an unobtainable standard. Instead, it is considering the effects of differing neural anatomy and judging a defendant against a similar person in a similar situation
