scholarly journals The Right to Strike and its Possible Conflict with Other Fundamental Rights of the People in the United States

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles B. Craver ◽  
Freda Alverson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals The Strange Fruit of the Tree of Liberty: Lynch Law and Popular Sovereignty in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 819-834
Author(s):  
Michael Gorup
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
Modern Democracy ◽  
Constituent Power ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right

Lynch mobs regularly called on the language of popular sovereignty in their efforts to authorize lynchings, arguing that, as representatives of the people, they retained the right to wield public violence against persons they deemed beyond the protections of due process. Despite political theorists’ renewed interest in popular sovereignty, scholars have not accounted for this sordid history in their genealogies of modern democracy and popular constituent power. I remedy this omission, arguing that spectacle lynchings—ones that occurred in front of large crowds, sometimes numbering in the thousands—operated as public rituals of racialized people-making. In the wake of Reconstruction, when the boundaries of the polity were deeply contested, spectacle lynchings played a constitutive role in affirming and circulating the notion that the sovereign people were white, and that African Americans were their social subordinates.

scholarly journals The Politics of Gun Control in the United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 46-59
Author(s):  
Vibeke Sofie Sandager Rønnedal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Past Century ◽  
The Past ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The People ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Right ◽  
Standing Army

The discussion of the right to keep and bear arms has been a growing issue in American society during the past two decades. This article examines the origin of the right and whether it is still relevant in contemporary American society. It is found that the Second Amendment was written for two main reasons: to protect the people of the frontier from wildlife and foreign as well as native enemies, and to ensure the citizen militia being armed and ready to fight for a country with a deep-rooted mistrust of a standing army and a strongly centralized government. As neither of these reasons have applied to American society for at least the past century, it is concluded that American society has changed immensely since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and that the original purpose of the right to keep and bear arms thus has been outdated long ago.

scholarly journals THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AND A FAST TRIAL: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

2021 ◽  
pp. 11-13
Author(s):  
V.V. Berch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Professional Activity ◽  
The People ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right ◽  
Speedy Trial

The article is devoted to the consideration of the constitutional right to a trial by a jury, as well as the right to a speedy trial in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. It is noted that as of today in Ukraine there is a question of ensuring the actual (real) participation of the people in the administration of justice and the creation of an appropriate mechanism for the realization of such a right of the people. It is established that the permanent evolution of the jury trial in the world as a full-fledged element of participatory democracy allows us to assert the possibility of applying the best foreign experience in this area and for Ukraine. It is noted that the jury trial, which is typical for the United States, is undoubtedly a consequence of the borrowing of English legal customs, but has its own special features. It has been established that the right to a speedy trial should be distinguished from other constitutional rights, as it concerns the interests of society and the justice system more than the interests of the accused. The circumstances that suggest whether a trial is in fact "fast" are rather vague, as each such proceeding is to some extent unique. The requirements for members of the jury are set out in the Jury Selection Act. It is noted that the release of jurors varies depending on the state. One of the grounds for such dismissal is professional activity. For example, doctors, lawyers, public figures, police or firefighters. At the same time, this practice is gradually ceasing to be natural. It is concluded that the jury trial as a form of public participation in the administration of justice is undoubtedly a democratic legal institution. Direct democracy in the exercise of judicial power, which is carried out in compliance with the principles of publicity and adversarial proceedings promotes the establishment of citizens' faith in the fairness of judicial decisions.  

The Extent and Limitations of the Treaty-Making Power Under the Constitution

1907 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 636-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandler P. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sovereign Power ◽  
The People ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

The power to make treaties with other nations is an inherent attribute of the sovereign power of an independent nation.Where the treaty-making power is exercised by the sovereign power of a nation, the right to treat with other nations rests wholly in sovereignty and extends to every question pertaining to international relations.Where, however, the treaty-making power is not exercised by the sovereign power of the nation as a whole, but has been delegated to a branch of the government by which it is exercised in a representative capacity, the treaty-making power there, although it arises from sovereignty, rests in grant, and can be exercised only to the extent of and in accordance with the terms fixed by the grant.So in the United States, where the people, as the sovereign power, have delegated through the medium of their State conventions or State legislatures the treaty-making power to a designated section of the Federal Government under the Constitution, such power rests in grant and is to be measured and exercised under the terms of such grant.

The Detention of Migrant Children: A Comparative Study of the United States and Mexico

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-253
Author(s):  
Jennifer J Lee ◽  
Elisa Ortega Velázquez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Migrant Children ◽  
Border Control ◽  
Irregular Migrants ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
The Us ◽  
American Children ◽  
The Right

Abstract Detention facilities are no place for children who are irregular migrants. Yet both the United States (US) and Mexico have struggled with how to respond to the arrival of Central American children who are primarily fleeing violence. In these neighbouring countries, the detention of children reflects both an ineffective and misguided strategy to deter people from moving across their southern borders. This focus on border control is further reinforced by the US outsourcing of enforcement controls to Mexico. In the US, a preoccupation with border control can quickly undermine the purported interest of protecting migrant children because they lack the fundamental right to be free from detention. In Mexico, its role as a buffer State causes it to overlook its human rights, constitutional, and federal law commitments to the fundamental rights of children, while allowing practical obstacles to stand in the way of these legal obligations. This article examines how the political imperative of border control in the US influences the various approaches taken by the US and Mexico towards the detention of migrant children. It analyses the shortcomings and best practices of each system and concludes with recommended reforms that actualize the right of migrant children to be free from detention.

Geneva Convention Compliance in Iraq and Afghanistan

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Grimm Arsenault
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right ◽  
Detainee Abuse

US compliance with the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to vary with the particular subject matter and battle space. In military operations during the last decade, the United States assessed the legality of virtually every proposed target to avoid the intentional targeting of civilians. Legal specialists also, however, flagrantly overlooked Common Article 3’s minimum prescription that all captured individuals have the right to be treated humanely. This variation in compliance is explained by the shift in mission objectives: When the United States approached these conflicts as purely counterterror operations, the goal was to disrupt the enemy. However, under the population-centric counterinsurgency mission, noncompliance with the Geneva Conventions equated to mission failure. The shift from counterterrorism to counterinsurgency increased US sensitivity to civilian casualties and the operational consequences of detainee abuse. By adapting practice to comply with the Conventions, the people became the prize in the war on terror.

Slavery's Legalism: Lawyers and the Commercial Routine of Slavery

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 571-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Simard
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Training ◽  
The Way

Eugenius Aristides Nisbet played a critical role in Georgia's secession from the United States. Elected as a delegate to Georgia's 1861 secession convention, Nisbet introduced a resolution in favor of severing ties with the Union, and he led the committee that drafted his state's secession ordinance. Nisbet was a trained lawyer who had served on the Georgia Supreme Court, and his legal training shaped the way that he viewed secession. He believed that the Constitution did not give states the right to dissolve the Union; instead, this power rested solely in the people, and he framed the resolution and ordinance accordingly. Thanks in part to Nisbet, it was the “people of the State of Georgia” who “repealed, rescinded and abrogated” their ratification of the Constitution in 1788.

Lending to the Borrower from Hell

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauricio Drelichman ◽  
Hans-Joachim Voth
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Sovereign Debt ◽  
Risk Sharing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Philip Ii ◽  
Loan Contracts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Intelligent Model ◽  
New Evidence

Why do lenders time and again loan money to sovereign borrowers who promptly go bankrupt? When can this type of lending work? As the United States and many European nations struggle with mountains of debt, historical precedents can offer valuable insights. This book looks at one famous case—the debts and defaults of Philip II of Spain. Ruling over one of the largest and most powerful empires in history, King Philip defaulted four times. Yet he never lost access to capital markets and could borrow again within a year or two of each default. Exploring the shrewd reasoning of the lenders who continued to offer money, the book analyzes the lessons from this historical example. Using detailed new evidence collected from sixteenth-century archives, the book examines the incentives and returns of lenders. It provides powerful evidence that in the right situations, lenders not only survive despite defaults—they thrive. It also demonstrates that debt markets cope well, despite massive fluctuations in expenditure and revenue, when lending functions like insurance. The book unearths unique sixteenth-century loan contracts that offered highly effective risk sharing between the king and his lenders, with payment obligations reduced in bad times. A fascinating story of finance and empire, this book offers an intelligent model for keeping economies safe in times of sovereign debt crises and defaults.

Law Struggles, Lawmaking, and the Politics of Hegemony in Neoliberal India

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Bo Nielsen ◽  
Alf Gunvald Nilsen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Land Acquisition ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Neoliberal India ◽  
Land Question

The chapter examines the fairness claim of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR), 2013. The author uses the utilitarian fairness standard proposed by one of the most influential American constitutional scholars of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Frank Michelman, whose study of judicial decisions from an ethical perspective by introducing the concept of “demoralization costs” has shaped the interpretational debate on takings law in the United States. Michelman’s analysis is particularly relevant for the land question in India today since there is a widespread feeling that millions of people have been unfairly deprived of their land and livelihoods. The chapter looks at the role of the Indian judiciary in interpreting the land acquisition legislation since landmark judgments affect the morale of society. It concludes that using Michelman’s standard would help in bringing about greater “fairness” than what the new legislation has achieved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document