June 23, 2018


Looking for PR & Finance Directors -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Elections 2016-2017 -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Why the ERA Failed: Comfort Over Content in the Fight for Women’s Rights -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

The Extent to Which Parents Should Regulate Their Children’s Abortions -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Human Rights in a Reclusive Context: North Korea -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Separation without Justification: Parental Rights of Pregnant Juveniles in Correctional Facilities -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

U.S. Asylum after September 11: Failures of the PATRIOT and ID Acts -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Genomicare: The Affordable Care Act of 2023 -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

“Social Worker with a Gun:” The Role of Policing in Harm Reduction Among Addicts -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Pulling Principles Out of Thick Air: The Incorporation of Customary International Law Under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 After Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Schuette v. BAMN: Moving Toward a Colorblind Constitution -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

American Women in Combat: What Israel and Canada Can Teach the United States About Integration -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Now Accepting Submissions! -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Join WULR! -

Monday, April 25, 2016

The Intersection of Lawlessness and Justice: Police Misconduct -

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

A Recommendation for Eliminating Lifetime Tenure for Federal Judges -

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Admissions Panel A Great Success! -

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Law School Admissions Panel -

Monday, November 3, 2014

VICTORY OF THE MINORITY: The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Fight for Constitutional Rights -

Monday, June 30, 2014

VACATING CONVICTIONS: The Efficacy of One Form of Relief from the Consequences of Conviction -

Monday, June 30, 2014


Article submissions are now open for the Journal! Deadline: December 19!

LEGAL HYPOCRISY AND EXTRAVAGANT POLITICAL THEATRE: Sovereign Immunity and its Effects on Contemporary American Politics

Spring 2014 : Volume VII : Issue 3

*Author: Habib Olapade, Stanford University

When the founders revised their states’ legal codes, in the midst of the revolution, several of them were content to retain the English common law tradition as the foundation of their new republic’s historically novel “empire of laws.” As conservative revolutionaries, who for the most part did not want to upset the prevailing socio-economic order of their provinces this cross-application was not unexpected. However, if one believes that a society’s legal code should be a reflection of its beliefs or social mores, then this move is problematic. The British and American governmental systems were based on fundamentally dissimilar notions of the relationship between the governors and governed and how this relationship should display itself in judicial proceedings.

While British law dictated that the king or “sovereign” was not bound to answer to law suits because he was the living embodiment of the national will, the Americans had just finished fighting a seven year war refuting those notions so that the people proper could be sovereign. Yet, as the ratification debates of 1787-1788 demonstrated, the founders’ notions of the relationship between the state and citizen were far from uniform. One can track the progress of this disagreement throughout our nation’s history by looking at how courts and politicians viewed this relationship and this aspect is most salient when one turns their attention to the legal and political evolution of the eleventh amendment’s sovereign immunity clause. The draft attached below is an informative, terse, but by no means exhaustive discussion of sovereign immunity’s history in American law and its contemporary impact on a wide variety of pertinent issues, from government mandated universal healthcare to the regulation of Native American economic activities. It is my sincere hope that this unique rendition of our judicial system will not only change the way the reader looks at the federal court system but force us to ask more pressing questions that challenge our judicial system’s stereotypes.

To continue reading this article please refer to our “Ordering” tab and purchase your hard copy of this publication, or download an online copy from our “Issues” tab. Thank you.

One Response to “LEGAL HYPOCRISY AND EXTRAVAGANT POLITICAL THEATRE: Sovereign Immunity and its Effects on Contemporary American Politics”
  1. There are some attention-grabbing closing dates in this article however I don’t know if I see all of them center to heart. There is some validity however I’ll take hold opinion until I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we would like extra! Added to FeedBurner as effectively

Leave A Comment