1412 research outputs found
Sort by
Heller and Protected Persons
No full textA discussion of how the Second Amendment, as interpreted by Heller, protects certain persons, including felons and formerly mentally ill persons seeking restoration of their right to arms and persons subjected to searches under the Fourth Amendment. Special attention will be given to felon dispossession cases such as Binderup v. Attorney General (Third Circuit) and Hamilton v. Pallozzi (Fourth Circuit), to the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department on the restoration of firearm rights to the formerly mentally ill, and to the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Robinson that held that even lawfully-armed persons are per se “dangerous” and can be subjected to a Terry frisk
Safeguarding Judicial Integrity During the Trump Presidency: Richard Nixon\u27s Attempt to Impeach Justice William O. Douglas and the Use of National Security as a Case Study
Get PDFIn April 1970, Congressman Gerald Ford called for the impeachment of Justice William 0. Douglas. Although Douglas had been accused by anti civil rights Southern Democrats of unprofessional conduct in his association with a political foundation as well as his four marriages, Ford reasoned that, in addition to the past allegations, Justice Douglas had become a threat to national security. Within two weeks of Ford\u27s allegations, United States military forces invaded Cambodia without the express consent of Congress. Nixon\u27s involvement in Ford\u27s attempts to have Justice Douglas impeached give rise to the possibility that, in addition to trying to reshape the judiciary and further architect the Southern Strategy by bringing conservative Southern Democrats into the Republican Party, the impeachment would serve as a means to divert attention away from the Cambodian invasion. Ford\u27s irresponsible conduct in this matter (and Justice Douglas\u27s overall conduct) have never been historically addressed and, as a result, did not leave to future political leaders and judges a means by which to gauge behavior that can undermine the independence of the judicial branch. This Article is intended to provide a historical model of accountability
Lunch Panel: Justice Scalia’s Use of History in Heller
No full textA discussion of Justice Scalia’s use of history in the Heller decision as a basis for recognizing the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense
Boycotting the Boycotters: Turnabout Is Fair Play Under the Commerce Clause and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine
Get PDFOrganized boycotts are among the most powerful means of expressing a viewpoint. Boycotts have become so prevalent and persuasive in American politics and culture that many local and state governments have adopted this form of expression as well, particularly through laws and policies that prohibit state funds from being invested in, or spent to contract with, parties whose actions the state finds objectionable. While the First Amendment status of many boycotts has been robustly covered in court opinions and scholarly works, the constitutionality of state and local governments responding in kind with their own boycotts is not as well understood.
Many commentators, and some litigants, take the position that state boycott action violates, inter alia, the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine, predicated on what is often a false belief that all boycott activity by non-state actors is absolutely protected First Amendment expression.
This Article examines the intersection of state and local boycotts of boycotters, on the one hand, and the Dormant Commerce Clause and Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine, on the other hand. One of the most contentious cases of states boycotting the boycotters involves state antidiscrimination laws designed to allow states to refuse to enter into contracts with parties engaged in organized boycotts of Israel. This Article takes an in-depth look at this particular boycott movement and state laws enacted to deal with the discriminatory intent and impact of those boycotts. It finds that states are on firm constitutional ground in enacting laws that boycott the boycotters
Expanding Printz in the Sanctuary City Debate
Get PDFAmerican attitudes toward immigration shift with changes in the nation\u27s economic and political climate. While waves of immigration to the United States are motivated by various factors, the extent to which immigrants are welcomed in the country does not consider these motivations. Rather, American perspectives of immigration vary by region and are informed by local economies and ideological majorities. Thus, while some localities work closely with federal immigration officials to facilitate federal regulatory schemes, other localities adopt policies that prohibit cooperation with federal immigration law, becoming sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants. This Comment explores the constitutionality of a federal provision that attempts to subvert the ability of sanctuary cities to implement policies they believe promote trust and communication with local immigrant communities and which ultimately improve public safety. Analyzed within the framework of Tenth Amendment federalism and state sovereignty, this federal provision is an invalid infringement of states \u27power to sustain sanctuary cities