The senator’s discriminatory intent

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otto Santa Ana
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Racial Bias ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
State Official ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

Abstract This is a critical analysis of the discourse of an elected state official in the years leading up to the passage of arguably racist legislation. It was submitted to a U.S. court of law to support the plaintiffs’ claim that since the legislator publicly expressed racial bias against the groups of people affected by the law, then his legislation should be voided because the United States Constitution requires that laws treat citizens equally. The fact that critical discourse analytic findings have been entered into the U.S. courts leads to the question whether such analyses of public pronouncements May ever be permitted to serve as legally probative evidence.

The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered: Politics, Policy, and Social Mobilization in a Democracy

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald T. Critchlow ◽  
Cynthia L. Stachecki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Mobilization ◽  
Equal Rights Amendment ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

In the early 1970s, fifty years after its first appearance in the U.S. Congress, the Equal Rights Amendment came the closest it ever would to ratification. The ERA declared: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” After sailing through Congress in 1972 with bipartisan support, the amendment went to the states for ratification. The response was positive and immediate: Hawaii approved the ERA the same day, twenty-one other states approved it before the end of the year, and eight more states the following year. Yet, by 1982 the amendment lay dead, having fallen three states short of the thirty-eight states needed for ratification.

scholarly journals Revitalizing The U.S. Compliance Power

2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Charnovitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

Although “[tjreaties are the law of the land, and a rule of decision in all courts,” the president and the courts may sometimes be powerless to achieve compliance with a U.S. treaty. That was the puzzling outcome of Medellin v. Texas. Even though the Supreme Court declared that the United States has an international obligation to comply with the Avena judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Court invalidated the president’s memorandum directing Texas and other errant states to comply.

Alcohol Content Labeling and Advertising: The Adolph Coors Company Lawsuit

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 949-958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. Martin ◽  
K. Preston Oade ◽  
Ted D. Nirenberg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
District Court ◽  
Federal Bureau ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Alcohol Content ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Law

Federal law prohibits brewers from disclosing information about the alcohol content of malt beverages on product labels or in advertising. In 1987, the Adolph Coors Company filed suit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, arguing that this law is an invalid suppression of speech violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Coors won the case in U.S. District Court and the defendants have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. A hearing and decision on the appeal is pending. This article summarizes the current federal law, describes the Coors case challenging the law, and discusses legal and practical issues concerning alcohol content labeling and advertising for malt beverages.

The Fourth Restatement, International Law, and the “Terrorism” Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

2020 ◽  
pp. 391-410
Author(s):  
Beth Stephens
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

This chapter evaluates the “terrorism” exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States sets out to “restate” the law of the United States and “relevant portions of international law,” not to critique U.S. law or settle debates about the content of international law. However, that task is complicated when the law of the United States triggers questions about unresolved international law issues. The “terrorism” exception to the FSIA illustrates this complexity. Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary have employed the exception as a politically motivated weapon to target disfavored states, while excluding U.S. allies, politically powerful states, and the United States itself from the reach of the statute. The text of the Fourth Restatement merely restates the U.S. law governing the “terrorism” exception, without identifying international law concerns or analyzing the issues they raise. The chapter, by contrast, offers a critique of the “terrorism” exception, focusing on the statute as written, as amended to reach particular targets, and as applied in practice. A well-crafted statutory exception to sovereign immunity for state human rights violations would be a welcome addition to human rights accountability. The “terrorism” exception falls far short of that goal.

Protecting Society from Child Sex Offenders: A Proposal for Lowering Recidivism Rates Through an Analysis of the Prevailing Social Policy and Methodology of the U.S and Denmark

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan J Kravitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Labeling Theory ◽  
Recidivism Rates ◽  
The Future ◽  
The U.S

This paper examines the current philosophy and methodology utilized in the United States and Denmark in dealing with child sex offenders and proposes post-release approaches that will reduce recidivism rates in order to better protect society in the future. After analyzing current classifications of child sex offenders, labeling theory is rejected in favor of a novel classification of offenders based on their victimization. The unreliability of current measures of recidivism rates is explored and proposals are set forth to reconfigure recidivism rates to effectively measure the value of post-release protocols. A study of the current laws and social policy of the U.S. and Denmark follows along with a critical analysis of post-release sanctions and treatments. I conclude with a proposal for a post-release protocol that should minimize recidivism of child sex offenders and provide the greatest protection to society.

scholarly journals La lucha por la la vida frente al necropoder estadunidense

Norteamérica ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariadna Estévez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
African American Community ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Face ◽  
White Supremacists ◽  
The Law ◽  
Postcolonial States ◽  
First World ◽  
The U.S

Necropower—defined as the power to produce and administer—has its first-world expression the United States. This expression is characterized by a spatially differentiated use of the law to enable nativists, neonazis, and white supremacists as well as anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, and gun rights activists, among others, for the use of death technologies. By examining the case of the African American community, this article shows how the U.S., led by Donald Trump, sustains a necropower differing from that of Postcolonial states only in its use of the law instead of legal exception to create death spaces. Additionally, the article highlights the #BlackLivesMatter movement as a resistance for life in the face of necropower.

scholarly journals Hacia una interpretación marxista de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertell Ollman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Marxist Interpretation ◽  
The U.S

Artículo originalmente publicado como introducción en OLLMAN, Bertel (ed). 1990. The United States Constitution: 200 years of anti-federalist, abolitionist, feminist, muckraking, progressive and especially socialist criticism. New York Press. EE.UU, y posteriormente con el título Toward a Marxist Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, en OLLMAN, Bertel. 1993. Dialectical Investigations. Rouledge. EE.UU. La traducción al castellano de este artículo fue realizada por Pablo Gres (estudiante de doctorado en Derecho, UBA), y revisada por Eva Winkler B. REDEA agradece especialmente al autor y al editor su autorización para publicar, al traductor y a la revisora de la traducción por la contribución realizada.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Constitution

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
The Law ◽  
German Bundestag ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Higher Law ◽  
Political Principles

The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament is often presented as a unique legal arrangement, one without parallel in comparative constitutional law. By giving unconditional power to the Westminster parliament, it appears to rule out any comparison between the Westminster Parliament and the United States Congress or the German Bundestag, whose powers are limited by their respective constitutions. Parliament in the UK appears to determine the law unconditionally and without limit. Nevertheless, a fuller understanding of parliamentary sovereignty as a legal and constitutional doctrine shows that this first impression is false. The nature of the British unwritten constitutional order is entirely similar to the written one prevailing in the United States or Germany. This is because the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, contrary to Dicey’s classic view, does not consist in a single dominant idea but in a number of related and mutually supporting principles that constitute higher law. The way in which these principles interact is parallel to the interaction of the main clauses of the United States Constitution or the German Basic Law. This analysis shows that the constitution, written or unwritten, never requires a ‘pouvoir constituent‘. The constitution emerges from the law as the result of moral and political principles that breathe life into our public institutions.

scholarly journals The problem of hate crimes in the United States of America

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Ewelina Bachera ◽  
Stephan V. Jupinko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Extended Projection ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

The aim of this article is to draw attention to an issue that has a long history: the problem of hate crimes in the United States of America. There is no doubt that hate crimes are the type of crime that attack the very principle of individuality that is an entitlement under the equal protection of the law (in the U.S.). Bearing the foregoing in mind the above, and that the number of such crime has increased at an alarming rate, this article describes and discusses types of hate crimes such as: Racist and Religious Hate Crimes, Sexual Orientation-Based Hate Crimes and Disability Hate Crimes as an extended projection of the analysis, several solutions have been proposed to mitigate tensions and combat the prevalence and severity of hate crime in all its forms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document