Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University College of LawNot a member yet
884 research outputs found
Sort by
New Jersey and Delaware Clash over Facilities Extending from the New Jersey Shore into the Delaware River and Across the State Line
No full textThe zeal with which the several states guard their respective claims of sovereignty arises from a unique blend of governance imperatives and pride. When the sovereignty of one state is exercised in a manner that reaches into affairs that a sister state claims to be within her sole authority, there is usually a prompt joining of the issue by the state that feels its sovereignty is being impinged. Many of these cases involve disputed state boundaries, and these tend to be more frequent when the disputed boundaries are demarked by rivers. The case now before the Supreme Court falls in that general milieu
Peace and or Justice: The Dilemma of Power-sharing
No full textThis entry in the African Legal Aid Quarterly was a published lecture that was given by Dr. Levitt as part of the Interface Between Peace and International Justice in Africa conference
Hurricane Katrina and Collective Identity: Seeing through a Her-storical Lens
Get PDFThis paper will explore the black wombman\u27s intersection of race, class, and sex during the early twentieth century, specifically as it relates to the pursuit of federal anti-lynching legislation. The central focus will be on the courageous efforts of black women to protect life by virtue of nommo, which means power of the spoken word
In Defense of the Roosevelt Court
Get PDFThe overriding purpose of the New Deal was to create opportunities for the common person to acquire a stake in society. The Roosevelt appointees to the Supreme Court were unwilling to allow either entrenched wealth or arbitrary governmental action to interfere with that objective. They remade the Constitution, but in so doing they returned the Constitution to its original purpose--the protection of personal liberty. The Roosevelt Court laid the foundation for a jurisprudence of human rights upon which the Warren Court and subsequent Supreme Courts have continued to build. Two justices presently serving on the Supreme Court--Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas--oppose many of the principles established by the Roosevelt Court, and they wish to turn back the clock to the interpretation of Constitution as it was prior to 1937. The purpose of this article is to describe and defend the human rights revolution of the Roosevelt Court
Illegal Peace? Power Sharing with Warlords in Africa
Get PDFThis paper examines the legality of power-sharing in Africa with specific reference to the Accra and Lome accords, which brought about a fragile cessation of the conflicts in Liberian and Sierra Leone, respectively. It examines the future of international criminal law vis-a-vis power-sharing by prospectively examining gaps in state practice and rules that arguably permit the crime of illegal peace by insurrectionists, political elites, and moral guarantors. When warlords use violence to coerce democratically constituted governments to share power, does power-sharing simply become a euphemism for guns for jobs ? Which legal rules, if any, govern peace agreements in internal conflicts? Specifically, which rules regulate power-sharing? Are the aims of peace, justice, and adherence to the rule of law attainable, let alone compatible, with coerced political transitions where warlords violently force democratically constituted or legitimate governments to share power? Should international law criminalize political elites that share power with warlords and rebels that have committed gross human rights and humanitarian law violations
2007 Hooding Ceremony Program
Get PDFhttps://commons.law.famu.edu/hooding-ceremony-programs/1002/thumbnail.jp
Immunity from the Focused Attention of Others: A Conceptual and Normative Model of Personal and Legal Privacy
Get PDF
Walking the Beach to the Core of Sovereignty: The Historic Basis for the Public Trust Doctrine Applied in Glass v. Goeckel
Get PDFIn 2004, a split panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals announced its conclusion that Michigan littoral owners of property owned to the water\u27s very edge and could exclude members of the public from walking on the beach. In that instant almost 3300 miles of the Great Lakes foreshore became, in theory and in law, closed to public use. The case became the leading flash point of controversy between the vast public and ardent private property rights groups. A little more than one year later, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed that ruling as errant on public trust grounds and returned the legal rule to what had been the long accustomed practice-that the public enjoyed rights to traverse the Great Lakes coast of Michigan below the ordinary high-water mark. This Article offers extensive historical support for the public trust positions taken by the Michigan Supreme Court drawn from the Romans, the Medieval period in which modern concepts of sovereignty derived, and the English and American uses of the doctrine up through the end of the nineteenth century. These sources demonstrate that the public rights of use of the foreshore of this nation\u27s great waters, including the Great Lakes, derive from the very essence of sovereignty as it is embedded in the American system of government. Accordingly, the public trust doctrine as received and expounded in this country is properly conceived of as an inherent limitation on the sovereign that no branch of government at either the state orfederal level is free to ignore