Crackdown

2020 ◽  
pp. 88-109
Author(s):  
Russell Crandall

This chapter recounts how the United States in the nineteenth century permitted considerable personal freedom of choice regarding drugs, citing the idiosyncrasies of the U.S. Constitution that helped ensure potent forms of opium, cocaine, and cannabis remained widely available nationwide. It talks about how the American legal system made states responsible for regulating drugs, particularly opium and cannabis, on their own turf. It also discusses how most states and several major cities by 1910 had anti-drug laws wherein ritual police raids were a hallmark of the states' haphazard enforcement schemes. The chapter recounts the first efforts at drug control at the federal level, which were designed not to break up underground dealer networks but to regulate the runaway pharmaceutical market. It refers to the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906, which simply mandated that certain active ingredients meet standardized purity requirements and forced drug makers to label in a clear way any of ten ingredients considered unsafe.

Author(s):  
James L. Gibson ◽  
Michael J. Nelson

We have investigated the differences in support for the U.S. Supreme Court among black, Hispanic, and white Americans, catalogued the variation in African Americans’ group attachments and experiences with legal authorities, and examined how those latter two factors shape individuals’ support for the U.S. Supreme Court, that Court’s decisions, and for their local legal system. We take this opportunity to weave our findings together, taking stock of what we have learned from our analyses and what seem like fruitful paths for future research. In the process, we revisit Positivity Theory. We present a modified version of the theory that we hope will guide future inquiry on public support for courts, both in the United States and abroad.


Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Paul Baumgardner

When coronavirus began to descend upon the United States, religious freedom advocates across the country sounded the alarm that citizens’ religious practices and institutions were under threat. Although some of the most extreme arguments championed by these advocates were not validated by our legal system, many were. This article explores the underappreciated gains made by religious freedom advocates before the U.S. Supreme Court over the past year. As a result of the “Pandemic Court”, religious freedom in the United States has been rewritten. This promises to radically change the educational, employment, and health prospects of millions of Americans for the rest of the pandemic and long afterwards.


Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A

International Law in the U.S. Legal System provides a wide-ranging overview of how international law intersects with the domestic legal system of the United States, and points out various unresolved issues and areas of controversy. Curtis Bradley explains the structure of the U.S. legal system and the various separation of powers and federalism considerations implicated by this structure, especially as these considerations relate to the conduct of foreign affairs. Against this backdrop, he covers all of the principal forms of international law: treaties, executive agreements, decisions and orders of international institutions, customary international law, and jus cogens norms. He also explores a number of issues that are implicated by the intersection of U.S. law and international law, such as treaty withdrawal, foreign sovereign immunity, international human rights litigation, war powers, extradition, and extraterritoriality. This book highlights recent decisions and events relating to the topic, including various actions taken during the Trump administration, while also taking into account relevant historical materials, including materials relating to the U.S. Constitutional Founding. Written by one of the most cited international law scholars in the United States, the book is a resource for lawyers, law students, legal scholars, and judges from around the world.


Author(s):  
Alfred W. McCoy

The current war on drugs being waged by the United States and United Nations rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the global nar­cotics traffic. In 1998, for example, the White House issued a National Drug Con­trol Strategy, proclaiming a 10-year program “to reduce illegal drug use and avail­ability 50 percent by the year 2007,” thereby achieving “the lowest recorded drug-use rate in American history.” To this end, the U.S. program plans to reduce foreign drug cultivation, shipments from source countries like Colombia, and smuggling in key transit zones. Although this strategy promises a balanced attack on both supply and demand, its ultimate success hinges upon the complete eradi­cation of the international supply of illicit drugs. “Eliminating the cultivation of il­licit coca and opium,” the document says in a revealing passage, “is the best ap­proach to combating cocaine and heroin availability in the U.S.” (U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy 1998: 1, 23, 28). Similarly, in 1997 the new head of the United Nations Drug Control Program, Dr. Pino Arlacchi, announced a 10-year program to eradicate all illicit opium and coca cultivation, starting in Afghanistan. Three years later, in the United Nation’s World Drug Report 2000, he defended prohibition’s feasibility by citing China as a case where “comprehensive narcotics control strategies . . . succeeded in eradicat­ing opium between 1949 and 1954”— ignoring the communist coercion that al­lowed such success. Arlacchi also called for an “end to the psychology of despair” that questions drug prohibition, and insisted that this policy can indeed produce “the eradication of coca and opium poppy production.” Turning the page, however, the reader will find a chart showing a sharp rise in world opium production from 500 tons in 1981 to 6,000 tons in 2000— a juxtaposition that seems to challenge Ar-lacchi’s faith in prohibition (Bonner 1997; Wren 1998a, 1998b; United Nations 2000d, 1–2, 24). Examined closely, the United States and United Nations are pur­suing a drug control strategy whose success requires not just the reduction but also the total eradication of illicit narcotics cultivation from the face of the globe. Like the White House, the United Nations Drug Control Program (UNDCP) re­mains deeply, almost theologically committed to the untested proposition that the prohibition of cultivation is an effective response to the problem of illicit drugs.


Author(s):  
Pamela Hobbs

AbstractLegal humor is a topic of perennial appeal, and has long been a prolific source of books, articles, and scholarly commentaries which are avidly consumed by popular and professional audiences alike. However, although a number of scholars have analyzed the use of humor in judicial opinions, there is no comparable body of scholarly examinations of lawyers' use of humor in their role as legal advocates. This omission is significant, because in the American legal system, humor and wordplay serve as highly-valued evidence of forensic skill which is deemed appropriate for display both within and outside of the courtroom. Accordingly, this paper attempts to fill the gap in the existing literature by examining attorneys' use of humor as persuasive advocacy in two widely divergent settings, informal court-mandated mediation and oral argument before the United States Supreme Court. In these data, the attorneys use humor aggressively to ridicule the plaintiffs' claims, depicting them as laughable and unworthy of serious consideration, while placing themselves at the center of a comic performance which allows them to display their linguistic skills. These data thus demonstrate that humor can be a potent weapon in an attorney's arsenal.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-227
Author(s):  
Norhabib Bin Suod Sumndad Barodi

In view of the recent development brought about by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, jurisdictions that retain the traditional definition of marriage have sufficient reasons to revisit the concept of marriage under their own laws. This article is an academic effort to explore whether the traditional or historic definition of marriage adopted in the Philippines, as articulated in its Constitution and other pertinent laws like the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines can withstand the new norm that Obergefell established in the legal system or constitutionalism of the United States. It attempts to project how the issue of same-sex marriage would be treated and decided in the Philippine context had it been an issue for which the Philippine legal system or constitutionalism is made to respond. This article emphasizes the incompatibility of the Obergefell decision with the Islamic definition of marriage and finds that the same decision is not entirely square with how the issue of same-sex marriage will be dealt with in Philippine constitutionalism.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-90
Author(s):  
S.M. Salikhova ◽  
◽  
A.M. Shakhaeva ◽  

The relevance of the consideration of the problem of civil liability for harm caused by goods with increased hazardous properties is determined by the fact that such cases occupy an increasingly important place in judicial practice. This shows that not only the legal awareness of citizens is growing, but the very definition of “goods with increased dangerous properties” does not have all the principles of specificity. In this regard, one can turn to the experience of other countries, especially those where consumer protection has proven effective. The United States is one of such countries, where not only the culture of consumption is high, but also the legal culture. This combination allows the American legal system to respond to citizens ’appeals in a timely manner and resolve issues with an objective review of cases where liability for damage caused by goods with increased dangerous properties is considered. In the United States, the definition of civil liability for manufacturers and sellers of goods and services is governed by federal and state laws. Moreover, it is the laws of the states in most cases that govern the most important aspects related to determining the shortage of goods, services and work. It should be noted the importance of the precedent in the US legal system, which also determines many cases for determining civil liability for harm caused by some properties of goods. To compare the fundamentals of the legislation of the two countries in the studied area, the comparative legal research method was applied, which allows us to highlight general and excellent legislative norms. Based on the results of the comparison, it was concluded that the similarities and differences between the American and Russian legislation in terms of civil-steam liability for damage caused by goods with dangerous properties.


2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Reichert ◽  
James T. Richardson ◽  
Rebecca Thomas

The idea that an individual could be manipulated into performing acts “against their will” created a fear of “brainwashing” and, specifically, new religious movements (NRMs). Courts in the United States initially accepted evidence concerning “brainwashing” in cases involving NRMs, and subsequently the term has been applied in situations involving other behaviors labeled as deviant both in the U.S. and other societies. This has generated challenges for legal systems despite the inability of brainwashing-based claims to meet requirements for admissibility as scientific evidence. Brainwashingbased claims have diffused into other areas of the American legal system, including, for example, custody cases involving allegations of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) as well as in cases involving terrorism. This report presents data on how brainwashing has been treated historically in American legal cases and its current uses within that justice system.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-136
Author(s):  
Izabela Kraśnicka

Abstract The original text of the Constitution of the United States of America, written over 200 years ago, constitutes the supreme source of law in the American legal system. The seven articles and twenty seven amendments dictate understanding of fundamental principles of the federation’s functioning and its citizens’ rights. The paper aims to present the evolution of the U.S. Constitution’s language interpretation as provided by its final interpreter - the Supreme Court of the United States. Example of the Second Amendment will be analyzed to present the change in understanding of the language grammar and, as a consequence, the sense of the right to keep and bear arms in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of District of Columbia v Heller (554 U.S. 570 (2008)). It will argue for the accuracy of statement of Charles Evans Hughes, former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document