Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University College of LawNot a member yet
884 research outputs found
Sort by
Reconsidering a Weakened Regulation: A Critical Analysis of Delisting in the Endangered Species Act
Get PDFMainstreaming Climate Change into Public Policy Functions: Legal Options to Reinforce Sustainable Development of Kenya
Get PDFBeyond Economic Efficiency in United Tax Law
No full textA collection of unconventional voices, Beyond Economic Efficiency in United States Tax Law articulates alternative approaches to traditional economic analysis that provide a fuller understanding of tax law.https://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-books/1052/thumbnail.jp
Public Law and Social Human Rights
Get PDFThis paper argues that public education is an international human right that the U.S. ought to recognize and protect. Recognizing a right to public education would correct a major inconsistency in U.S. law by bringing education rights doctrine more in line with international human rights law. This piece discusses how current U.S. education rights doctrine is inconsistent with U.S. tradition and legal precedent. It then demonstrates how international law recognizes public education as a fundamental duty of government before arguing for why the U.S. is obligated to follow international law regarding the right to public education.https://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-books/1050/thumbnail.jp
Five Answers and Three Questions after United States v. Jones (2012), the Fourth Amendment GPS Case
Get PDFEach year, the United States Supreme Court\u27s docket includes a range of high profile cases that attract attention not merely from law professors and others with an acquired fascination with the Court, but also from a general audience of law students, lawyers, scholars and commentators on American politics and society, as well as, occasionally, the public at large. During the 2011 Term, one of those cases was the GPS case, formally known as United States v. Jones.\u27 Media coverage of the case spread far beyond the legal blogosphere to a wide variety of mainstream and popular sources, both in print and online. Many people who had no familiarity with the legal doctrinal intricacies of Fourth Amendment law nevertheless waited with bated breath to hear what the Court would say about what limitations, if any, the Constitution might place on the authority of the police to use GPS technology for tracking criminal suspects-or, more broadly, the authority of the Government in general to maintain surveillance of the public movements of people in everyday life. When the decision was announced in January 2012, nearly everyone from the layperson reading a news update online to the law professor ready to thoroughly dissect the ramifications of the opinion with a criminal procedure class-was left underwhelmed by the Court\u27s resolution of the case, at least compared to the anticipation beforehand. In two respects, at least, the Court was unanimous and clear: the Defendant\u27s argument prevailed and the Fourth Amendment applied to what the police had done on the facts of the case. Other than that, however, the Court did not provide very much guidance about the Fourth Amendment implications of GPS surveillance or similar tracking technologies in the future. The lack of clarity was particularly acute because the reasoning underlying the Court\u27s holding revealed a 5-4 split among the Justices - a division that differed from the stereotypical perception of the Justices\u27 ideological divides as well as a concurring opinion that seemingly agreed with both of the other two camps while simultaneously staking out a position broader than either. At first glance the three opinions revealed a Court seemingly intent on avoiding the complex and difficult issues of Fourth Amendment rights in a digital, Internet-interconnected age and putting off these tough judgment calls for another case on another day. As is often true of the Court\u27s decisions, though, the reality is more nuanced than initial appearances might suggest. While the opinions in Jones undeniably left open several significant questions for resolution in future cases, they actually provided answers to a number of subsidiary questions. Consequently, it is worth taking the time to carefully consider not only the issues the Jones decision leaves open, but also the questions it answers
Empowering Environmental Justice Communities Locally and Globally
No full textThe Fourth Annual Environmental Law and Justice Symposium features current and future leaders with expertise in environmental law, environmental justice, human rights law, public policy, political science, international finance and development, Native American law and policy, environmental science, and community organizing.https://commons.law.famu.edu/cilj-lectures-pres/1001/thumbnail.jp
A Proposal for Addressing Violations of Indigenous Peoples\u27 Environmental and Human-Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System
Get PDFInternational concerns in the areas of human rights, health, and environment have expanded considerably in the past several decades. International environmental law primarily focuses on environmental damage, rather than its impact on human beings. The focus of environmental treaties is primarily on constraining environmentally deleterious behavior, rather than preventing injuries to people. Part I of this paper will discuss the significance of environmental protection for indigenous peoples. Part II will analyze the linkage between environmental and human rights, as well as the lack of a direct enforcement mechanism for redressing violations of environmental rights. It will also describe the existing legal framework for addressing violations of environmental rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Part III will propose a solution to the lack of a mechanism for direct enforcement of the right to a healthy environment by suggesting a new enforcement clause for the San Salvador Protocol. Finally, Part III will propose the framework for enforcement of the right to a healthy environment
Only Fools Who Send Hyenas to Roast Meat for Them: In Search of the Doctrinal Foundations of the Not-So-Ordinary Crime of Patrimonicide
Get PDFCrimes against humanity are generally considered crimes of such unimaginable horror that they shock the conscience of mankind. The Article challenges the international community to take a mental leap by recognizing that the contemporary version of official corruption is so fundamentally different from its historical antecedents that it deserves to (a) be called a different name: indigenous spoliation or patrimonicide; and (b), to be treated as an extraordinary crime that rises up to the level of a crime against humanity. Towards this end, the Article reviews the basic elements of a crime against humanity identified in various legal instruments, and in the law and practice of the three United Nations\u27 ad hoc criminal tribunals. On the basis of this analysis, the Article then proceeds to demonstrate the link between the constituent elements of a crime against humanity and the new crime of indigenous spoliation