Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/bronfs/uwfs/dw00/d34/wulr/wordpress/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/bronfs/uwfs/dw00/d34/wulr/wordpress/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/bronfs/uwfs/dw00/d34/wulr/wordpress/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/bronfs/uwfs/dw00/d34/wulr/wordpress/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

June 24, 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

ARRESTED FOR EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the United States and the Revolution of the Rhode Island Homeless Bill of Rights

Winter 2014 : Volume VII : Issue 2

*Author: Cristina Semi, Hamline University

*Public order laws that criminalize life-sustaining behaviors when performed in public systematically disadvantage unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness because they are compelled by their situation to necessarily perform such conduct in public. Historically, vagrancy laws were used to legally eliminate the presence of individuals experiencing homelessness from the public streets. Since courts have largely overturned these unconstitutional laws, many cities have resorted to criminalizing basic, life-sustaining behaviors, such as sleeping, sitting, lying, and camping. Though these laws utilize neutral language that applies to all citizens, the punitive value of the laws is truly only endured by unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness. In early 2012, Rhode Island codified a solution to this epidemic. The Rhode Island Homeless Bill of Rights confers upon all individuals experiencing homelessness the right to move around in and freely use public spaces, but the statute’s inclusion of the phrase “…in the same manner as any other person…” does not confront the current discrimination against individuals experiencing homelessness in relevant criminal law. Essentially, the
Rhode Island law does not acknowledge the fact that “any other person” is not systematically disadvantaged by public order laws. While the Homeless Bill of Rights is certainly a step in the right direction towards legally addressing the
criminalization of homelessness, the law does not go far enough. All states should look to Rhode Island’s law as a legislative model, but should further develop this concept to explicitly challenge and eradicate the discrimination against individuals experiencing homelessness currently within many cities’ ordinance codes.

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.

INSTITUTIONALIZED SILENCE: The Problem of Child Voicelessness in Divorce Proceedings

Winter 2014 : Volume VII : Issue 2

*Author: Brandon Sadowsky, The Ohio State University

*By and large, children are not represented in divorce proceedings. Moreover, when children do receive a representative, this person tends to be bound by that child’s best interests rather than being bound by that child’s expressed wishes. The question is, why are we so hesitant to give children a meaningful voice in the legal proceedings that so greatly affect their lives? This paper argues that issues concerning child representation are fundamentally underpinned by two conflicting intuitions: our paternalistic impulses and our value, or respect for autonomy. By understanding both of these intuitions, we can create a model of child representation that gets everything we want and need. This paper contends that a hybrid model of representation, which incorporates both a child’s voice and a way to ensure a child’s best interests fits the aforementioned criteria. In all, this paper is a contribution toward remedying the issue of institutionalized silence of children in divorce.

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.

JUDGMENT WITHOUT JUSTICE: The Evolution of Civilian Trials Under Military Commissions

Winter 2014 : Volume VII : Issue 2

*Author: John Moreland, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

*Military commissions were first used in American history during the American Revolution by the Continental Army. They were again used in the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. Perhaps the most expansive use of military commissions was during the Civil War, including the famous trial of the Lincoln assassination conspirators. This article examines the use and change of trials of civilians by military commissions from the American Revolution to the post-9/11 United States. It does so by canvasing three landmark military commissions: the trial of the Lincoln assassination conspirators, ex parte Quirin (1942), and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004). In each case, it examine the facts, the procedures used by the military tribunals, and the outcomes and precedent that each set for American jurisprudence. By studying this evolution of military commissions, not only do the violations of constitutional rights become apparent, but also the overreaching of constitutional powers by the Executive Branch. While each of the three cases possesses distinct time periods, fact patterns, and outcomes, all of them resulted in the violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the overreaching of governmental power by one branch exercising the authority of another branch, and the use of military commissions as an instrument of expedient revenge for attacks against America. In all three cases, the jurisdiction of the Military Commission was challenged on the basis that the Executive did not have the constitutional authority to appoint commissions. Also, they violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of the accused by not providing for a Grand Jury and having the trial proceedings in secret. The suspension of habeas corpus and martial law was also of issue. It is interesting to see the evolution of military commissions over the course of history and to consider their potential in the future. Even though several constitutional rights have been adopted and protected in these tribunals, the question of who is to establish them still remains. Is it expressly Congress? Is it the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief? The Supreme Court has yet to address these issues. Perhaps by not addressing these questions, the Supreme Court is giving the Executive tacit approval. However, it is during a time of war or national emergency when the president is most likely to make extralegal decisions and thus constitutional rights are most threatened.

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.

A CHECK ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER AND A FLAWED RULING

Winter 2014 : Volume VII : Issue 2

*Author: Nathan Brickman, University of Michigan

*This paper will examine presidential power in the context of President Harry Truman’s steel mill seizure in 1952. The purpose is to show the key factors surrounding this incident and explore the various reasons for the Supreme Court’s decision to rule the seizure unconstitutional. This case is a critical lesson in understanding the importance of presidential authority, and this article disagrees with the Court’s ruling and will explain what went wrong during the President’s defense. Additionally, this paper will analyze and redevelop Justice Jackson’s three-tiered system explaining presidential power in his concurring opinion to create a more concise guideline.

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.

RECESS APPOINTMENTS AND RATIONAL CHOICE IN THE AGE OF PARTISANSHIP

Fall 2013 : Volume VII : Issue 1

*Author: Elliot J. Mamet, Colorado College

Under Presidents William J. Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, the recess appointment has dramatically emerged as a powerful and frequently used tool. These Presidentshave used various end goals to justify recess appointments: diversifying the federal judiciary, overcoming Senate gridlock, and regulating the financial industry. This paper argues that even if these end goals are normatively valid, modern recess appointment undermine the separation of power inherent in our separation of powers.This paper examines two case studies: President Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and President Clinton’s recess appointment of RogerL.Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.This paper argues that recess appointments grossly aggrandizePresidential power, challenging the fabric of the American system with unintended negative consequence.

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.