1412 research outputs found
Sort by
One Hundred & Thirty-Second Spring Commencement (2018)
Get PDFhttps://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/commencement/1096/thumbnail.jp
Reginald Heber Smith and Justice and the Poor in the 21st Century
Get PDFReginald Heber Smith\u27s 1919 book, Justice and the Poor, is one of the most important books about the legal profession in history. It found that people without money were denied access to the courts. Smith argued that this failure to provide equal justice undermined the social fabric of the nation. Accordingly, he urged a number of actions, including simplifying court procedures, creating small claims courts, and providing the poor with access to lawyers. These lawyers would deliver a full range of legal services to their clients, including seeking reform of the substantive laws that burdened the poor. Smith\u27s book shamed the elite bar into action and led to the creation of the modern legal aid movement. As we come upon the 1 00th anniversary of its publication, Justice and the Poor reminds us that we are not much closer to Smith\u27s vision of equal justice than we were in 1919
Heller and Public Carry Restrictions
Get PDFA discussion of how lower courts have applied Heller to various restrictions on the carrying of firearms in public places, with special attention given to the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision in Wrenn v. District of Columbia, the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego, and the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Woollard v. Gallagher
From Secret White House Recordings to @realdonaldtrump: The Democratic Value of Presidential Tweets
Get PDFModern US. presidents have chosen their words meticulously and deliberately, with the assistance of aides and speechwriters, all with a view toward how their message would be delivered and understood. Rarely has the electorate had access to the unvarnished thoughts of a president. At times, secretly recorded conversations in the White House have allowed Americans to hear the unabashed thoughts of various presidents. However, save for the Watergate scandal, those recordings had no immediate, discernible democratic impact because they were released years after the presidents\u27 words were recorded. The recordings are noteworthy because they capture presidents\u27 musings in the private sphere, where one is more secure and more likely to engage in self-reflective, authentic expression. In contrast, presidents typically engage the electorate in the public sphere, where one\u27s speech is more likely to be refined and restrained and where the democratically oriented interchange of ideas occurs. First Amendment jurisprudence reflects these realities.
The Supreme Court has identified the value of speech in the private sphere as facilitating individual cognitive and emotional development, while speech in the public sphere is valued because it is essential to self-governance. Social media, however, has the capacity to collapse the public and private spheres so that private, self-reflective expression and affect easily enter the public sphere. This Article posits that, to the extent social media collapses the public and private sphere, President Donald Trump\u27s use of Twitter redounds to the electorate\u27s benefit. While private, self-reflective expression might otherwise only serve the needs of an individual, it becomes a matter of public concern worthy of democratic value when it is on public display in a President\u27s tweets. Through President Trump\u27s tweets, the electorate can instantly access the President\u27s character and motivation and make concomitant democratic decisions
Redefining Trade Secrets in North Carolina
Get PDFNorth Carolina has a trade secrets problem, and it resides at the most elementary part of the doctrine: the definition. In the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act, the general assembly established an elemental, two-prong test for identifying a trade secret. Courts adjudicating trade secrets cases, however, have strayed from this definition, instead applying a six-factor balancing test that common law courts used before enactment of statutory trade secret definitions. This bifurcated development has not only created an inconsistent jurisprudence-it has also cultivated fundamental problems in the North Carolina legal system. Namely, North Carolina courts have infringed on the province of the legislative branch, changed the law governing trade secret claims, and prompted practitioner confusion.
This Comment traces the development of trade secret law nationwide and, more specifically, within North Carolina. It identifies where courts went wrong in their trade secret jurisprudence. Through discussion of the problems of the judicially created six-factor test, this Comment advocates for a simple, straightforward solution. That is, the North Carolina Supreme Court should steer lower courts back to the statutory definition
Patch by Patch: North Carolina\u27s Crazy Quilt of Campaign Finance Regulations
Get PDFAfter more than a decade of judicial intervention and legislative reforms, North Carolina\u27s campaign finance laws resemble a crazy quilt - a patchwork of provisions pieced together from remnants and scraps. The law is a dizzying array of proscriptions, requirements, and exceptions, sometimes based on speaker identity and sometimes based on the content or context of the political message. This quilt is what remained after the Fourth Circuit\u27s strained and confusing decision in North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, decided in 2008, immediately following the Supreme Court\u27s landmark decision in McConnell v. FEC. This Comment evaluates and summarizes North Carolina\u27s existing campaign finance regulations, provides a critical analysis of both the state of the law and of the Fourth Circuit\u27s decision in North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, and offers a suggested analytical framework for future judicial review of campaign finance regulations
The First Congressional Debate on Public Carry and What It Tells Us About Firearm Regionalism
Get PDFIn the aftermath of District of Columbia v. Heller, a prominent issue remains unresolved: whether, or to what extent, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms outside of the home. This Article explores this unresolved issue through a newly uncovered source, the congressional debates surrounding the District of Columbia\u27s public carry law in the 1890s.
These debates provide new insights into the understanding of the right to keep and bear arms in the years following the drafting and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two conclusions can be drawn from the debate. First, there was no national consensus regarding a right to public carry under the Second Amendment. This is important because the Supreme Court in Heller stated that the Second Amendment codified venerable, widely understood liberties. Second, the Senators\u27 and Congressmen\u27s varied positions on the Second Amendment and the permissible scope of public carry regulations generally fell into regional patterns. Representatives of states in the North and West supported a more limited public carry right, while those representing states in the Deep South, with some exceptions, supported a broader Second Amendment right. Because the Northern Republicans were the ideological force behind the drafting and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, their restrictive view of public carry should be given special weight when determining the constitutionality of contemporary public carry regulations
