scholarly journals The Future Of Affirmative Action After Grutter v. Bollinger

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Alexander Becker
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Font Size ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Subject

<p class="MsoBlockText" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The future of affirmative action was the subject of a pair of consolidated cases decided by the United States Supreme Court in June 2003.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Whether the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the use of race in the admission of students to a University or whether diversity can provide a compelling government interest sufficient to meet Fourteenth Amendment standard was the controversy decided by the Supreme Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>This case will affect the future of affirmative action not only in higher education, but also in the employment arena as well. </span></span></p>

The Supreme Court and the Constitution

1924 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 737-759
Author(s):  
Alan H. Monroe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
American History ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
True Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject

Ever since the famous case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the United States Supreme Court has exercised the power of declaring acts of Congress unconstitutional and of refusing to enforce them as law. From the beginning, the exercise of this power has been the subject of great controversies as to both theory and practice. It has been assailed as subverting the true nature of our government. It has been stigmatized as the foundation of a judicial obligarchy. It has been attacked as a means for the nullification of the popular will as expressed in Congress. It will be the purpose of this paper, therefore, to inquire into the use of this power in relation to acts of Congress with especial regard to (1) the criticisms that have been made at various times throughout American history, and (2) the proposals that have been made to modify the exercise of this power.

scholarly journals RESPONSABILIDADE EM FACE DE PIQUETE NA JURISPRUDÊNCIA NORTE-AMERICANA

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (54) ◽  
pp. 499
Author(s):  
Edilton MEIRELES
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Deductive Method ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

RESUMONeste trabalho tratamos do direito de manifestação em piquetes e da responsabilidade que possa advir desses atos em face da jurisprudência da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da América. A partir da análise das principais decisões da Suprema Corte se pode concluir que, de modo geral, os participantes do piquete não respondem quando agem de forma não ilegal. Está sedimentado, no entanto, o entendimento de que o organizador do piquete responde pelos atos dos participantes. A pesquisa desenvolvida se justifica enquanto estudo comparativo e diante do pouco debate existente no Brasil a respeito do tema. Na pesquisa foi utilizado o método dedutivo, limitada à ciência dogmática do direito, com estudo de casos apreciados pelo judiciário. PALAVRAS-CHAVES: Responsabilidade; Piquete; Estados Unidos; Suprema Corte; Liberdade De Expressão. ABSTRACTIn this work we deal with the right of demonstration in pickets and the responsibility that may arise from these acts in the face of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. From the analysis of the Supreme Court's main decisions it can be concluded that, in general, the picket participants do not respond when they act in a non-illegal way. It is settled, however, the understanding that the picket organizer responds by the acts of the participants. The research developed is justified as a comparative study and in view of the little debate that exists in Brazil regarding the subject. In the research was used the deductive method, limited to the dogmatic science of law, with study of cases appreciated by the judiciary.KEYWORDS: Responsibility; Picket; United States; Supreme Court; Freedom Of Expression.

Annulment of Legislation by the Supreme Court

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 541-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Horace A. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Proper Function ◽  
Historical Study ◽  
Political Movements ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Many

The growing strength of the various political movements for limiting judicial authority over constitutional questions has aroused a new interest in the origin of the courts' power. Wherever the source be found, or however the practice may have developed, the authority now exercised by the United States supreme court does not determine the proper function of state courts in local cases, which is now the chief issue; but its study throws some light on the attitude that each of the three departments of government—legislative, executive and judicial—ought to assume toward the subject of constitutional law, and is of particular interest to the many citizens whose opinion of the new proposals will be more or less favorable as they appear to bring us back nearer to original ideals or to carry us farther away. The historical study is interesting also in showing that our forefathers in their discussions by no means adopted the viewpoint of most of the modern writers—of assuming that whenever a law is declared unconstitutional, the court is always right, and is performing a public service in so deciding.

Act of State and Department of State: First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional De Cuba

1972 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 795-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas F. Lowenfeld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Recent Issue ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Formal Communication

No recent issue has so divided lawyers and writers in the field of international law as the question whether courts of one nation should sit in judgment on the acts of other nations with respect to foreign held property—sometimes, always, or never. The United States Supreme Court in Banco Nacional de Cubav. Sabbatinosaid the answer was never—or at least hardly ever—thus upholding and reaffirming the “act of state doctrine”. The Congress in the Hickenlooper (or Sabbatino) Amendmentmade an effort to reverse that ruling, an effort that has proved largely unsuccessful. Now the State Department has taken its turn, arguing in a formal communication to the Supreme Court that when it perceives no objection to adjudication on foreign policy grounds, the courts should judge the validity of the foreign nation's acts under international law standards—at least as to counterclaims.

scholarly journals Double Jeopardy and Dual Sovereignty Doctrine: Gamble v. United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 225-242
Author(s):  
Javier Escobar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
The Supreme Court

Abstract: In Gamble v. United States, the defendant questioned the constitutionality of the dual sovereignty doctrine under the double jeopardy clause. In its judgment, delivered on 17 June, 2019, the United States Supreme Court upheld the application of the dual sovereignty doctrine, according to which different sovereigns may prosecute an individual without violating the double jeopardy clause if the individual's act infringed the laws of each sovereignty. This comment aims to address the reasoning of the Supreme Court and the rationale of the dual sovereignty doctrine, suggesting the convenience and necessity of a further study on its limits and the possible safeguards against potential abuses. 

National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Security ◽  
Current System ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Future

The United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971, concerning how government should balance its legitimate need to conduct its operations—especially those related to national security—in secret, with the public’s right and responsibility to know what its government is doing. The Pentagon Papers decision, though, left many important questions still unresolved and the circumstances that undergirded the system initiated by the decision have changed fundamentally in recent decades. Difficult problems call for a range of different perspectives. In this book, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone gather an array of remarkable, wise, and accomplished individuals to share their deep and broad expertise in the national security world, journalism, and academia. Each essay delves into important dimensions of the current system to explain how we should think about them, and to offer as many solutions as possible. A rigorous and serious analysis, this volume examines the incredibly complex and important issues that our nation must continue to address and strive to resolve as we move into the future.

The Supreme Court and the Juvenile Court

1967 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-487
Author(s):  
Noah Weinstein ◽  
Corinne R. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Exact Effect ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Time

For the first time in its 68-year history, the juvenile court has felt the impact of the United States Supreme Court. It would be impossible to predict the exact effect of the decisions, but unquestionably they will be of prime importance in their influ ence on juvenile court procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document