Making sense of Santería: three books on Afro-Cuban religion

1996 ◽  
Vol 70 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 291-300
Author(s):  
Stephan Palmié
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Indiana University ◽  
New West ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Academic Publications ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Conventional Models

[First paragraph]Santeria from Africa to the New World: The Dead Sell Memories. GEORGE BRANDON. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. x + 206 pp. (Cloth US$31.50) Working the Spirit: Ceremonies of the African Diaspora. JOSEPH M. MURPHY. Boston: Beacon, 1994. xiii + 263 pp. (Cloth US$ 25.00)Walking with the Night: The Afro-Cuban World of Santeria. RAUL CANIZARES. Rochester VT: Destiny Books, 1993. xii + 148 pp. (Paper US$ 12.95)Since 1959, the steady exodus from revolutionary Cuba has led to the gradual emergence of an Afro-Cuban religious diaspora in the United States. While this phenomenon has attracted scholarly attention for some time, the literature has grown particularly rapidly in recent years. It is, perhaps, not entirely fortuitous that a spate of current academic publications on the subject coincided with a scramble by the popular media to exploit its exotic potential in the context of the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case on animal sacrifice. Clearly, what has come to be called an Afro-Cuban "cultic renaissance" in exile holds promise both for sensationalist journalism and certain kinds of theoretical projects. Partly articulating with older, but politically reinvigorated debates about the relations between African and African-American cultures, partly addressing fundamental questions about conventional models of cultural boundedness and coherence, and, finally, calling into question both popular and academic notions of "modernity" (and its inevitable counterpart "tradition"), the 292 New West Indian Guide/Nieuwe West-Indische Gids vol. 70 no. 3 &4 (1996)problems posed by the emergence of an Afro-Cuban religious diaspora in the United States present a timely challenge.

Purchasable Offices in Ceded Territory

1909 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-136
Author(s):  
Percy Bordwell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Secretary Of War ◽  
Considerable Detail

In the July number of the Journal is given the decision of the Court of Claims in Sanches v. The United States and of the Supreme Court in O’Reilly v. Brooke. Both cases involve the validity of the orders of military governors in former Spanish territory abolishing offices for which a price had been paid and which the holder claimed were private property and thus under the protection of the law of nations and the treaty of peace with Spain. In the Sanches case the office abolished was that of “ numbered procurador of the courts of first instance of the capital of Porto Rico;” in the O’Reilly case the office was that of high sheriff of Havana. In each case the opinion was expressed that the office had ceased with the extinction of Spanish sovereignty, but in the Supreme Court case this was not necessary to the decision, as General Brooke’s liability had already been denied on other grounds, while the opinion on this point was delivered without argument of counsel, without exposition, and without the citation of authority other than that of the Secretary of War in approving General Brooke’s order. It is the opinion of the writer that the holders of those offices were entitled to indemnification. The facts of the O’Reilly controversy will be gone into in considerable detail.

US Supreme Court, Medellín v. Texas: More than an Assiduous Building Inspector?

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN KING GAMBLE ◽  
CHRISTINE M. GIULIANO
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Strong Reaction ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case

AbstractThe US Supreme Court case of José Ernesto Medellín, Petitioner v. Texas, decided on 25 March 2008, has generally been seen as a US refusal to follow unambiguous treaty provisions. There has not been such a strong reaction to US behaviour relative to specific treaty obligations since the 1992 Alvarez-Machain case. The Supreme Court majority (six votes to three) held that ‘neither Avena nor the President's Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law’. The uncomfortable – and to many illogical – conclusion reached by the Court was that even though Avena is an ‘international law obligation on the part of the United States’, it is not binding law within the United States even in the light of an explicit presidential order. While the result may be disappointing, the case should be understood in the context of a legal system that (i) makes treaties part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’; (ii) has developed a complicated concept of self-executing treaties; and (iii) can be hesitant to direct states (sub-national units) to follow presidential directives even on matters of foreign policy.

scholarly journals Tenth Amendment

Federalism-E ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-56
Author(s):  
Lucy Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Interwar Period ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Tenth Amendment

This paper argues that the Tenth Amendment was a beneficial compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, and as a result the Amendment is not a truism, but instead integral to securing state sovereignty and protecting the integrity of federalism.  The paper begins by describing the historical context for the inclusion of the Amendment and the framers’ reasoning for its inclusion. The paper continues on to evaluate the Amendment from its conception until present day. The paper refutes the Amendment as a truism, displaying how the Supreme Court has significantly developed the relevance and use of the Amendment through two major time periods: the interwar period and the years following the Supreme Court case Schechter Corp. v. United States. A variety of Supreme Court cases, peer reviewed articles, and recently published news articles are employed to illustrate the Amendment’s development and relevance to federalism in the United States.

scholarly journals Could This Supreme Court Case Affect Robert Mueller?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
The United States ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Good Cause ◽  
At Will

This article examines the then-pending Supreme Court case of Raymond J. Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, and its possible implications for Robert Mueller. At issue in Lucia is the question of whether SEC Administrative Law Judges are “officers” or “employees” of the United States. More precisely, Lucia is arguing that SEC Administrative Law Judges—who are appointed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge—are officers of the United States who constitutionally may be appointed only by the president or by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Implicated in this case is the question of whether administrative law judges must be dischargeable at will or whether, as is now the case, they may be fired only for “good cause.” Fundamentally, whittling away at administrative independence from the president could embolden both President Trump and his advisors to aggressively advocate for a strong “unitary-executive” presidency under which the chief executive is entitled to fire at will any “Officers of the United States”—including Robert Mueller.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document