for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
  Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1326 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (35 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (47 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (88 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (22 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (142 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (22 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (179 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (22 journals)
    - LAW (761 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (8 journals)

LAW (761 journals)                  1 2 3 4 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Acta Juridica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica     Open Access  
Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Adelaide Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 42)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
African Journal of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Afrilex     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Al 'Adalah : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
Al-Ahkam     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Albany Law Review     Free   (Followers: 5)
Alberta Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 56)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Amsterdam Law Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez     Open Access  
Annales Canonici     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade - Belgrade Law Review     Open Access  
Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña     Open Access  
Anuario de Psicología Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ANZSLA Commentator, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Appeal : Review of Current Law and Law Reform     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Arctic Review on Law and Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Arena Hukum     Open Access  
Argumenta Journal Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arizona Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 3)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Ars Aequi Maandblad     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Art + Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Article 40     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
ASAS : Jurnal Hukum dan Ekonomi Islam     Open Access  
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Asy-Syir'ah : Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum     Open Access  
Australasian Law Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Australian Feminist Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Australian Indigenous Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Ave Maria Law Review     Free   (Followers: 3)
Badamai Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ballot     Open Access  
Baltic Journal of Law & Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Behavioral Sciences & the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Beijing Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 11)
Bioethics Research Notes     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Boletín de la Asociación Internacional de Derecho Cooperativo     Open Access  
Bond Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 10)
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Brigham Young University Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Bulletin of Legal Medicine     Open Access  
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Business and Human Rights Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
C@hiers du CRHIDI     Open Access  
Cadernos de Dereito Actual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos de Informação Jurídica     Open Access  
Cadernos do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito - PPGDir./UFRGS     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário     Open Access  
Cahiers, Droit, Sciences et Technologies     Open Access  
California Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 19)
California Lawyer     Free  
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 160)
Campbell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Canadian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi     Open Access  
Catalyst : A Social Justice Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Catholic University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Chicago-Kent Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
China : An International Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
China-EU Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Chinese Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Chinese Law & Government     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Cleveland State Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Free   (Followers: 8)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 38)
Comparative Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
Conflict Trends     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Criterio Jurídico     Open Access  
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
Danube : The Journal of European Association Comenius - EACO     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
De Jure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
De Rebus     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Deakin Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Debater a Europa     Open Access  
Defense Counsel Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Democrazia e diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Denning Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
DePaul Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Der Staat     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Derecho Animal. Forum of Animal Law Studies     Open Access  
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Derechos en Acción     Open Access  
Die Verwaltung     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Dikaion     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dike     Open Access  
Diké : Revista Jurídica     Open Access  
Direito e Desenvolvimento     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Direito e Liberdade     Open Access  
Diritto penale contemporaneo     Free   (Followers: 2)
Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Dixi     Open Access  
Droit et Cultures     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Droit et Médecine Bucco-Dentaire     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Droit, Déontologie & Soin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Drug Science, Policy and Law     Full-text available via subscription  
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Duke Forum for Law & Social Change     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 24)
DULR Online     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
East Asia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ecology Law Quarterly     Free   (Followers: 3)
Edinburgh Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Education and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
El Cotidiano     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Election Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Energy Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Environmental Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Environmental Policy and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
ERA-Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Erasmus Law Review     Open Access  
Espaço Jurídico : Journal of Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ESR Review : Economic and Social Rights in South Africa     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Ethnopolitics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
EU agrarian Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Europaisches Journal fur Minderheitenfragen     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
European Energy and Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
European Journal for Education Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
European Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
European Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 158)
European Public Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 36)
European Review of Contract Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
European Review of Private Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 32)
European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Evaluation Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Evidence & Policy : A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Faulkner Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Communication Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 21)
Federal Probation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Feminist Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
feminists@law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Fiat Justisia     Open Access  
First Amendment Studies     Hybrid Journal  
Florida Bar News     Free  
Florida Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)

        1 2 3 4 | Last

Journal Cover Fordham Law Review
  [SJR: 0.963]   [H-I: 22]   [14 followers]  Follow
    
  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
   ISSN (Print) 0015-704X
   Published by Fordham University Homepage  [6 journals]
  • Dedication to Senator Birch E. Bayh

    • Authors: John D. Feerick
      Abstract: Former U.S. Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana has been honored many times for his outstanding career in public service. Fordham University School of Law and the Fordham Law Review have been beneficiaries of his selfless service of others.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:48:02 PST
       
  • Letting the Electrics Slide: A Constitutional Challenge to State
           Dealer-Franchise Laws Prohibiting Direct-to-Consumer Car Sales

    • Authors: Thomas Sperber
      Abstract: Tesla Motors has a business model for its U.S. sales unlike that of all other car manufacturers: Tesla sells cars directly to consumers rather than through a system of independently owned dealers. Most car manufacturers choose not to sell cars this way because most states have dealer laws that ban direct-to-consumer sales. To use this business model, Tesla has had to win narrow exceptions to these dealer franchise laws. It has mostly succeeded with this method and can now sell cars, albeit from a limited number of company stores, in all but six states. Tesla is now suing the state of Michigan claiming that its dealer franchise law violates Tesla’s rights to substantive due process and equal protection. Traditionally, economic regulations facing Fourteenth Amendment challenges are subject only to a low standard of scrutiny that grants great deference to legislative judgment. However, some lower courts have been applying a standard of scrutiny that, while still low, requires some inquiry into the legitimacy of the legislature’s justifications of the regulation. This Note argues that, if Tesla’s case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court should institute a more exacting standard of review for economic regulations that discriminate against one party for the sole purpose of protecting the economic interests of another. The extremely deferential reaction to cases such as Lochner v. New York, where the right of parties to contract was upheld against all better judgments, has no place in a political system where big money interests can influence state legislatures. To be clear, this Note does not ask the Court to carve out an exception for Tesla but rather to strike down the universal ban on direct-to-consumer car sales. This Note embarks on a thorough review of the Court’s application of substantive due process, a study of the current regulatory climate of new car sales, and a recommendation that the Court should consider the compelling policy reasons to rule in favor of Tesla.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:59 PST
       
  • Challenging Statutory Accommodations for Religiously Affiliated Daycares:
           An Application of the Third-Party Harm Doctrine

    • Authors: Bronwyn Roantree
      Abstract: Daycare facilities are subject to a host of regulations that govern matters from basic health and safety requirements, to caregiver training, to maximum caregiver-to-child ratios. In sixteen states, however, legislation exempts religiously affiliated daycares from many of these regulations, with six states extending particularly broad exemptions. Supporters of the exemptions have justified them on constitutional grounds, arguing that state oversight of religiously affiliated daycares violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Recent reporting has revealed that though children have been seriously injured or have died while in the care of religiously affiliated daycares exempted from regulations, challenges to the exemptions have been unsuccessful. This Note proposes an alternative strategy for challenging the statutory accommodations extended to religiously affiliated daycares. Both judicial exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause and statutory accommodations under the Establishment Clause have historically been limited by the doctrine of harm to third parties. Invoking a balancing test, this Note argues that courts ought to weigh the free exercise burden imposed on the religiously affiliated daycare against the harm to third parties caused by accommodation. As such, this Note suggests that parents of children harmed in exempt facilities invoke the balancing test to argue that the harm to third parties outweighs the free exercise burden imposed by regulations.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:56 PST
       
  • A Vote for Clarity: Establishing a Federal Test for Intervention in
           Election-Related Disputes

    • Authors: Ben Klein
      Abstract: Increasingly, state and federal courts are asked to resolve election-related disputes, as candidates are more likely than ever before to challenge some aspect of the administration of an election in court. Election-related litigation puts judges in the unfavorable position of kingmaker, forcing the court, not the people, to determine the winner of an election. When the court intervenes in an election dispute, the public may perceive the court’s intervention as a political act that decreases the legitimacy of the winning candidate and the election system as a whole. Moreover, research reveals that judicial decision-making at both the state and federal levels can be skewed by party loyalty. Typically, election-related lawsuits are brought in state court because election administration is a matter of state and local control. Occasionally, however, federal courts are called to review an election dispute in which a candidate or voters allege that the administration of the election resulted in an infringement of constitutionally protected rights. While nonintervention is the default in federal court, under certain rare circumstances federal courts have determined intervention to be appropriate. The federal judiciary has never, however, clearly established a test for determining when intervention is warranted. This Note explores the federal courts’ reluctance to intervene in election disputes through the lens of a recent Second Circuit decision: Pidot v. New York Board of Elections. Ultimately, this Note concludes that federal courts should adopt an explicit two-part test to determine whether (1) the state corrective procedure adequately protected the constitutional interests of candidates and voters and (2) nonintervention would result in fundamental unfairness to the voters.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:53 PST
       
  • A Voice for One, or a Voice for the People: Balancing Prosecutorial Speech
           Protections with Community trust

    • Authors: Immanuel Kim
      Abstract: Prosecutors, as representatives of the public in the criminal justice system, are the sole advocates for “the People” in a criminal case. Thus, prosecutors are expected to maintain a particular level of integrity that would ensure a fair and just representation of the People. Despite this expectation, the wide discretionary authority prosecutors hold makes it virtually impossible to regulate their conduct. Furthermore, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects many expressions of viewpoints, and such protections extend—albeit to a limited degree—to prosecutors, thereby giving them even more discretion in how they decide to handle their own cases. Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court has not interpreted the First Amendment to protect prosecutors whose words evidently contravene the functions of the prosecutor’s office. Rather, a prosecutor may be terminated if the office finds that the prosecutor’s speech undermines the office’s interests. What the law does not address, however, is the extent to which the First Amendment protects prosecutors whose unfavorable viewpoints do not affect their individual performance within the workplace but nonetheless detract from the community’s trust in the prosecutor’s office. This Note examines the state of the First Amendment as it applies to prosecutors within the scope of their employment and utilizes the underlying principles to expand the discussion to prosecutorial speech beyond the scope of their employment. Ultimately, this Note proposes that prosecutorial speech should be regulated not only by the effect the speech has on the office’s functions but also by the adverse effect the speech has on the community’s trust in the prosecutor and the office to pursue justice in an unbiased manner.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:49 PST
       
  • Back to the Drawing Board: Revisiting the Supreme Court's Stance on
           Partisan Gerrymandering

    • Authors: Robert Colton
      Abstract: In the United States, state legislatures have drawn voting districts to achieve desired election results for hundreds of years. Dating back to the James Madison presidency, various legislatures and iterations of the U.S. Supreme Court have wrestled with the legal and constitutional issues that stem from the practice known as “gerrymandering.” While courts and legislatures have, at times, been successful in eliminating some of the more sinister uses of the tactic, such as racially motivated district-line drawing, gerrymandering inspired by partisan motives remains. Continual improvements in technology coupled with an increasingly divided political culture mean that partisan gerrymandering is at risk of becoming more effective than ever. As a result, the voices of individuals with political ideologies opposing those of the sitting state legislatures risk being quieted to barely audible whispers. Until this year, however, the Supreme Court had contented itself to stand idly by, firmly refusing to wade into the legal and constitutional muck that is partisan gerrymandering. This Note explores the uses and effects of partisan gerrymandering by modern state legislatures. It then delves into the contentious history of the partisan gerrymandering question at the Supreme Court level, with special focus on a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy in which he proposed a solution for how to handle future partisan gerrymandering issues. This Note analyzes the validity of Justice Kennedy’s solution and ultimately concludes that his proposal has sound legal and practical support and would allow courts to hold unconstitutional efforts to gerrymander along political lines.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:46 PST
       
  • American Equal Protection and Global Convergence

    • Authors: Holning Lau et al.
      Abstract: Commentators have noted that equal protection doctrine is in a state of transformation. The nature of that transformation, however, is poorly understood. This Article offers a clearer view of the change underway. This Article is the first to reveal and synthesize three major trajectories along which the U.S. Supreme Court has begun to move. First, the Court has begun to blur the line that it previously drew between facial discrimination and disparate impact. Second, the Court has begun to collapse its previously established tiered standards for reviewing discrimination. These two trajectories combine to produce a third trajectory of change: by blurring the distinction between facial discrimination and disparate impact, and by collapsing tiered review, the United States’ equal protection doctrine is converging with equality jurisprudence from peer jurisdictions abroad. After describing these changes, we argue that the collective wisdom of foreign jurisdictions should serve as persuasive authority encouraging the United States to continue along its current trajectories of doctrinal reform. We contend that foreign jurisdictions have served as laboratories of doctrinal innovation from which the United States could learn.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:43 PST
       
  • Taking Steel Seizure Seriously: The Iran Nuclear Agreement and the
           Separation of Powers

    • Authors: Samuel Estreicher et al.
      Abstract: This Article examines the constitutional validity of President Obama’s decision, as part of his 2015 agreement with Iran, effectively to repeal seventeen different sanctions provisions for the fifteen-year life of the agreement. Although Congress had legislated extensively in this area, the President effected this change by entering into a “nonbinding political agreement” with Iran and by aggregating individual waiver provisions in the sanctions laws into an across-the-board waiver of sanctions. We argue that the commitments made by the President in the Iran agreement violate a fundamental separation-of-powers limit on executive power—what we term the Steel Seizure principle,” after Youngstown—the Steel Seizure case. As the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed in Steel Seizure, the President does not have lawmaking power even where national security and foreign relations concerns are at stake. A vast literature has grown around Steel Seizure, especially its influential concurring opinion by Justice Robert Jackson. Yet relatively little attention has been paid to the majority view of the Justices that President Truman’s seizure order was unlawful not because it contravened any express statutory prohibition but because it flouted the congressional “plan” for addressing the particular policy issue. This aspect of Steel Seizure highlights what is particularly problematic about President Obama’s decision to aggregate authorities in the sanctions laws and to commit the United States to an across-the-board waiver of nuclear-related sanctions pursuant to his agreement with Iran. President Obama treated the waiver provisions as an invitation to end the congressionally prescribed sanctions regime for addressing Iran’s nuclear weapons program and to replace it with his own nonsanctions regime for addressing the same issue. Yet the President lacks the unilateral power to overturn Congress’s prescribed policy and to replace it with his own.The President can be viewed both as an agent and, particularly in the foreign relations area, as a co-principal with Congress. The Steel Seizure principle highlights the limits of the co-principal conception of the President’s role in foreign affairs. Once Congress has developed a legislative framework for a subject matter, that framework occupies the field; the President’s role becomes one of a responsible agent. In the Iran sanctions laws, Congress provided bounded waiver authority, acting responsibly to allow limited executive discretion rather than requiring the President to seek new legislation each time flexibility was needed. It did not, however, invite the President to override the sanctions framework altogether. An emergent literature in administrative law and U.S. foreign relations law has praised Congress’s willingness to delegate waiver authority to the President for providing needed flexibility and other policy benefits. Yet that literature recognizes that the President’s exercise of waiver authority must be carefully circumscribed to avoid enabling the President effectively to revise a statutory regime out of disagreement with Congress’s policy choices. Such limiting principles are no less necessary in the foreign affairs context, where President Obama used purported waiver authority in the Iran sanctions statutes to pursue his own policy in defiance of Congress.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:40 PST
       
  • "A Dr. Strangelove Situation": Nuclear Anxiety, Presidential Fallibility,
           and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment

    • Authors: Rebecca C. Lubot
      Abstract: This Article is a revisionist history of the ratification of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which establishes procedures for remedying a vice presidential vacancy and for addressing presidential inability. During the Cold War, questions of presidential succession and the transfer of power in the case of inability were on the public’s mind and, in 1963, these questions became more urgent in the shadow of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Traditional legal histories of the Amendment argue that President John F. Kennedy’s assassination was both the proximate and prime factor in the development of the Amendment, but they do not account for the pervasive nuclear anxiety inherent in American politics and culture at the time. Oral interviews of key actors, such as former Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, the Amendment’s architect, as well as examination of the Lyndon B. Johnson papers, the files of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, and other previously unexamined archives, offer new insight into the anxiety and thought processes of the President, Congress, and state legislators. With the ratification of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment on February 10, 1967, the nuclear anxiety of the era became ingrained in the Constitution itself. The framers of the Amendment adjusted America’s foundational document not as dictated by a momentary whim but by the exigencies of the times. With the goal of expanding the field of legal history by examining cultural and political factors, this Article argues that nuclear anxiety provides another important explanation for the incorporation of the Amendment.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:36 PST
       
  • The Bipartisan Bayh Amendment: Republican Contributions to the
           Twenty-Fifth Amendment

    • Authors: Joel K. Goldstein
      Abstract: It is appropriate that Senator Birch Bayh has been widely recognized as the author and person most responsible for the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. His work was indispensable, and he was helped by other Democrats and nonpartisan actors including the American Bar Association and John D. Feerick, among others. Yet the Amendment was also the product of bipartisan cooperation. Important provisions were based on work done during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Eisenhower and his Attorney General, Herbert Brownell, played important roles in supporting Bayh’s proposal as did other Republicans in and out of Congress. Republicans like Representative Richard Poff pushed ideas and provisions that found their way into the Amendment, helped create important legislative history, and contributed in the legislative process. Bayh’s legislative contribution included the inclusive manner in which he operated, and many Republicans deserve credit for participating constructively in a process they could not direct. In describing the bipartisan character of the Bayh Amendment, this Article seeks to fill a void in scholarly writing since no prior work has this focus. It also uses the Twenty-Fifth Amendment as a case study of the sort of bipartisan effort on which any constitutional amendment depends. And it suggests that the dispositions that produced the Twenty-Fifth Amendment—in particular, communal problem solving based on a recognition of the need for interested parties to build from areas of agreement—would contribute to addressing other social problems.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:33 PST
       
  • The Twenty-Fifth Amendment and the Establishment of Medical Impairment
           Panels: Are the Two Safely Compatible'

    • Authors: Robert E. Gilbert
      Abstract: The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was added to the Constitution, after years of effort, in 1967, to resolve instances of debilitating illnesses of all kinds. The Amendment’s four sections deal with: (1) vice presidential succession to the presidency; (2) replacement of the Vice President when that office becomes vacant; (3) voluntary withdrawal of the President from office and his or her replacement by the Vice President who becomes Acting President; and (4) involuntary replacement of the President by the Vice President who becomes Acting President.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:30 PST
       
  • The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: A Personal Remembrance

    • Authors: John D. Feerick
      Abstract: When I left law school, I did not realize that I would have a unique opportunity to apply the learning I received on the Constitution. It all started with a newspaper item I saw describing a constitutional problem involving the disability of a President. I mentioned the subject to my college classmate, Louis Viola, who said he had a file of newspaper clippings that dealt with the disabilities of President Eisenhower. Upon reading it, I became fascinated by the subject and decided to research the issue and offer my ideas as to a solution.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:27 PST
       
  • What to Do If Simultaneous Presidential and Vice Presidential Inability
           Struck Today

    • Authors: Roy E. Brownell II
      Abstract: Dual incapacity is one of three major inability scenarios involving the Vice President that threatens the continuity of the executive branch. The current state of the law in this area, unfortunately, leaves only imperfect options for policymakers. This Article proposes that, in the event of a dual inability, the Speaker, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Cabinet should meet and then jointly declare that the Speaker is Acting President until either the President or Vice President regains capacity. At the same time, the Speaker—as the new Acting President—the President pro tempore, and the Cabinet should request that Congress ratify their decision and the process they undertook to reach that determination.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:24 PST
       
  • Fifty Years After the Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Recommendations for
           Improving the Presidential Succession System

    • Authors: Second Fordham University School of Law Clinic on Presidential Succession
      Abstract: This Report begins with an overview of the presidential succession system, particularly the Twenty-Fifth Amendment provisions. The remaining Parts describe the Clinic’s recommendations. The first Part of the Clinic recommendations discusses executive branch contingency planning and outlines two steps the White House can take to prepare for presidential inabilities. First, the Clinic recommends that the President determine in advance situations where the Vice President should act as President under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment’s voluntary transfer provision at Section 3. Such a “prospective declaration of inability” would allow for transfers of power during emergencies when the Cabinet is not easily reachable to invoke Section 4, the Amendment’s other inability provision. Second, given that some Presidents have suffered psychological ailments, the Clinic recommends that the White House add a mental health professional to the unit of doctors and nurses who care for the President. The next Part describes the Clinic’s recommendations for improving the line of succession. These recommendations address concerns about the successors’ qualifications and other vulnerabilities. The Clinic’s recommendations include removing legislators and lower-ranking Cabinet members as well as adding some officials chosen by the President and confirmed by Congress. Next, the Report addresses the absence of procedures for vice presidential inabilities and “dual inabilities” of the President and Vice President. These gaps could prevent orderly transfers of power. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment’s inability provisions are unusable when the Vice President is incapacitated. In a “dual inability” situation, there is no formal way for the next person in the line of succession to take power. The Clinic recommends statutes that mirror the Twenty-Fifth Amendment’s inability provisions to address these gaps. The following Part considers how Congress would carry out its responsibility to resolve a dispute over whether the President is unable. Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment gives Congress twenty-one days to “decide” whether the President is unable if the President contests an inability determination by the Vice President acting with the Cabinet or another body. The Clinic recommends the creation of a joint committee of both Houses of Congress. This Part also anticipates legal disputes that may arise in such a scenario. The final two Parts focus on succession and inability issues during presidential campaigns. Some candidates have been less than forthcoming with the public about their health histories. To encourage more transparency, the Clinic recommends that a commission develop guidelines for what candidates should disclose about their health. Last, the Report considers the political parties’ procedures for replacing presidential candidates. The parties’ current replacement rules lack detail and have unclear provisions for situations where candidates become unable. The Clinic recommends making the vice presidential nominee the designated successor to the nomination in the final weeks of the campaign and creating a provision for candidate inabilities.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:21 PST
       
  • Foreword: Continuity in the Presidency: Gaps and Solutions

    • Authors: Matthew Diller
      Abstract: This symposium issue featuring a report and articles on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment and the presidential succession system is perfectly timed. Its release comes in the final month of the year that marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment’s ratification and at a moment of unprecedented public discussion of the Amendment. Yet, in Fordham Law School’s unique history with the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, auspicious timing is not unusual.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:47:18 PST
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.80.97.221
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-