|
Dartmouth College Undergraduate Journal of Law
Volume 3, Issue 3: Fall 2005
|
|
|
Table of Contents
- The Solomon Amendment in 2005
By Gerald A. Daniel, Jr.
As a former active duty member and as a current Air Force Reservist, the author took a special interest in the recent public debate over whether military recruiters should be allowed to bring the Department of Defense employment message onto civilian campuses. The debate carries with it important funding issues for colleges and universities all over the country. At the heart of the issue, however, is not the question of money but rather the question of conscience. Academic organizations in many parts of the country find themselves at odds with the Department of Defense stance on homosexuality in the military and the academic environmental standards that are professed by academic leadership.
|
- Interstate Variation in U.S. Death Penalty Policy: An Analysis of Current Research
By Kevin H. Anderson
| This article examines the question of whether or not capital punishment can be implemented fairly in the United States, in light of continued research findings that the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory fashion with respect to race, socioeconomic status and region. Adopting a case study approach, the article examines the administration of the death penalty in Missouri and Tennessee, two states with similar crime rates, demographic characteristics and other relevant variables, yet vastly disparate execution rates. The study's goal is to ascertain whether the literature on death penalty policy explains the two states' different execution rates and whether there is a legal explanation for the variation. The article concludes that current theories fail to explain the divergent execution rates in Missouri and Tennessee and that slight differences in legal procedures between the two states are insufficient to explain their execution rates. Consequently, this study leaves open the possibility that virtually identical death penalty laws are applied arbitrarily in two states, highlighting the urgent need for further research to examine interstate variation in execution rates.
|
- Constitutional Desegregation: Reconciling Originalism with Brown
By Pratik Chougule
| Since 1954, the legal philosophy of originalism has been criticized for its purported inability to produce a just outcome in the landmark school desegregation case of Brown v. Board of Education. This paper intends to refute that criticism. A historical and legal examination of the Constitution reveals that an originalist interpretation of the Constitution would have ended school segregation quicker and more permanently than activist approaches while preserving the integrity of the original meaning of the Constitution.
|
- The International Criminal Tribunal and the Rwandan National Courts
By Mikaela Colleen
|
A review of the influential role of clergy members in the Rwandan genocide and how that
pressure affects international and domestic courts. This analysis also illustrates the challenge of identifying the superior judicial system in instances of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
|
- The Things You Never Knew About Mute Swans: Fund for Animals v. Norton
By Michelle Schwartz
|
This paper analyzes Fund for Animals v. Norton, a case in which parties dispute Maryland's
right to lethally control the mute swan population, especially given the final published
Environmental Assessment (EA). Many issues are discussed in this case, including the issue
of injunctive relief for plaintiffs' irreparable harm from the “mere contemplation” of lethal
population control, the definition of “significant impacts” in agency proposals, potential
uncertainty in environmental assessments, and defendant's burden of proof in a post-motions trial. The paper also discusses the obvious consequences of the case, placing the case in a historical context, while unveiling its importance: the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA) and resulting litigation.
|
- Dennis v. United States: The Supreme Court's Contribution to McCarthyism
By Elizabeth Parfit
In Dennis v. United States, the Supreme Court interpreted the Alien Registration Act of 1940, commonly known as the Smith Act, in such a way as to exclude the Communist party from Constitutional protection. This decision provided the legal support for the serious violations of civil rights that would characterize Senator Joseph McCarthy's methods and ensure the success of the anti-communist campaign of the early 1950s. While in late 1954, the Senate finally censured McCarthy for his overly abusive methods, it was the Supreme Court, in Yates vs. United States (1957), which at last reversed its Dennis test for criminalizing Communist party membership, thereby restoring First and Fifth Amendment rights to American Communists.
|
|
| |
