scholarly journals A Treatise on the Law of Non-Residents and Foreign Corporations, as Administered in the State and Federal Courts of the United States

1892 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 704
Author(s):  
G. W. P. ◽  
Conrad Reno
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The State ◽  
The Law ◽  
Foreign Corporations

The New Federal Arbitration Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 203-206
Author(s):  
Julius Henry Cohen ◽  
Kenneth Dayton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Business World ◽  
The Law ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
And Control ◽  
At Will

This article focuses on the federal arbitration law. On February 12, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge signed the United States Arbitration Law, which became effective on January 1, 1926. This act reversed the hoary doctrine that agreements for arbitration are revocable at will and are unenforceable, and in the language of the statute itself, they are made “valid, enforceable and irrevocable” within the limits of federal jurisdiction. There are three evils which arbitration is intended to correct: (1) the long delay usually incident to a proceeding at law, in equity or in admiralty, especially in recent years in centers of commercial activity, where there has arisen great congestion of the court calendars; (2) the expense of litigation; and (3) the failure, through litigation, to reach a decision regarded as just when measured by the standards of the business world. The article then argues that the proposed law rests upon the constitutional provision by which Congress is authorized to establish and control inferior federal courts. It also contends that sound public policy demands specific enforcement of arbitration agreements by the law.

Necessities of State: Police, Sovereignty, and the Constitution

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Tomlins
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Regulatory Law ◽  
Independent States ◽  
The Law

Over the last fifteen years, legal historians have been exploring conceptualizations of the state and state capacity as phenomena of police. In this essay, I offer a genealogy of police in nineteenth-century American constitutional law. I examine relationships among several distinct strands of development: domestic regulatory law, notably the commerce power; the law of indigenous peoples and immigrants; and the law of territorial acquisition. I show that in state and federal juridical discourse, police expresses unrestricted and undefined powers of governance rooted in a discourse of sovereign inheritance and state necessity, culminating in the increasingly pointed claim that as a nation-state the United States possesses limitless capacity “to do all acts and things which independent states may of right do.”

In the [Source] C\ode of the Conquerors

2020 ◽  
pp. 124-137
Author(s):  
Nicholas Ravotti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Digital Divide ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Culturally Appropriate ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
The Law

The practice of law requires not only an understanding of the law itself (i.e., what the law “says”), but also the ability to conduct proper legal research to formulate cogent legal arguments in support of one's case. For attorneys practicing before state and federal courts in the United States, this is accomplished through the use of legal research databases that catalog and archive nearly all state and federal trial court and appellate court opinions. For attorneys who practice before the 573 federally-recognized Indian tribal courts, this task is far more complex. This chapter discusses the need for a culturally-appropriate legal research database to bridge the digital divide in tribal courts.

Introduction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas R. Seabrook
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Government ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Legislature ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The State ◽  
Electoral Support ◽  
First Time ◽  
Considerable Pressure

As the results of the 2002 election flashed across their television screens, Texas’s congressional Republicans could be forgiven for feeling a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the redistricting process in the United States. Their party had seen its share of the statewide vote in U.S. House elections increase from 49.8 percent in 1992 to 54.9 percent in 2002. Yet, even with this latest ten-point victory over the Democrats in the popular vote, they had once again failed to convert their increasingly dominant electoral support into a Republican majority in the state’s congressional delegation. A partisan gerrymander, passed in the wake of the 1990 Census and left largely intact by the district boundaries implemented by the federal courts following the 2000 Census, had allowed the Democratic Party to maintain its overall majority in the Texas delegation for more than a decade. The Democrats won twenty-one of Texas’s thirty seats in Congress in 1992, and managed to retain control of nineteen in 1994 and seventeen from 1996 to 2000, despite averaging just 45.8 percent of the two-party vote in these elections. In 2003, the Texas Republicans, armed for the first time with control of both houses of the state legislature and the governorship, undertook an unprecedented mid-decade redrawing of the state’s congressional boundaries. Though many Republicans in the state government were opposed to the idea of redrawing the district boundaries mid-decade, the effort was initiated under considerable pressure from Republicans in Congress, most notably House majority leader Tom DeLay (...

The Prussian Theory of Government

1918 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. W. Willoughby
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Preceding Paper ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Sharp Distinction ◽  
The Law ◽  
Governmental System

Political scientists make a sharp distinction between the terms “State” and “Government.” A State is a group of individuals viewed as a politically organized unit. In the eyes of the law it appears as a corporate being possessing supreme authority and issuing commands in the form of laws addressed to those over whom it claims authority. A Government is the machinery or complexus of organs through which this state-being formulates, expresses, and enforces its will.In my preceding paper I dealt wholly with the Prussian conception of the State and had nothing to say regarding Prussian conceptions of Government. In this paper I shall have little to say regarding the Prussian theory of the State and shall devote myself almost wholly to a consideration of the Prussian governmental system. Of this system, however, I shall speak of but one of its features, namely, its strong monarchical character. In result there should appear what justification there is for the demand of the United States and of the Entente Powers for a modification of the Prussian system.

The Law and Foreign Prisoners in Texas: A Socio-Legal Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Jurg Gerber ◽  
Kate Angulski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Dietary Restrictions ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
The Law

We examine in this article the legal status of foreign prisoners in the United States in general, and in the State of Texas in particular. With few exceptions, the law does not distinguish between domestic and foreign prisoners, granting similar rights and obligations to each. We conclude this article by examining current controversies in the treatment of foreign prisoners in the United States. Issues examined include dietary restrictions, use of languages other than English, length of hair, and mandatory and indefinite detention of aliens.

Procedure in Cases Involving Immunity of Foreign States in Courts of the United States

1931 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-96
Author(s):  
A. H. Feller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Procedural Complications ◽  
The Law

To the ever-increasing confusion of doctrine which makes up the law of sovereign immunity, the courts of the United States have added procedural complications which, though not as weighty, are nevertheless as puzzling as any of the substantive rules. Of recent years the United States Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts have often had occasion to consider the method whereby the question of immunity was raised. The result has been the evolution of a set of rules so vaguely defined in the decisions as to offer little guidance to the bench and bar, and withal of interest to the scholar who finds that these rules exist in no other judicial system.

Judicial Deference in Foreign Relations

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Law

Disputes with foreign policy implications have often been brought to the federal courts. These cases call attention to the tension between the authority of the political branches to conduct the foreign relations of the United States and the authority of the courts to render judgments according to the law. How this tension is resolved, in turn, bears directly on the commitment of the United States to the rule of law.

The Obligation to Ratify Treaties

1919 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Eugene Harley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Law

One of the earliest examples of a sort of ratification is found in the treaty between Justinian and the Persian King, Chosroes, in 561 A. D. In this case the sovereigns agreed to accept that which their plenipotentiaries had promised and agreed upon. The French-Swiss alliance of May 28, 1777, was sanctioned by solemn oaths. It was the custom in earlier times to take hostages to insure ratification; this Grotius believed entirely proper. The oath gave way to a mere act or declaration of ratification.Grotius likened a plenipotentiary to a mandatory, holding that all agreements reached by him were binding upon the sovereign from the time of signature, unless the secret instructions were transcended. Thus he regarded ratification as a mere form, not affecting the validity of the treaty. Likewise Martens, writing in 1789 at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, believed that if a mandatory had not exceeded his secret instructions, all that he agreed to was binding upon the state represented, and that the law of nations required no particular ratification (ratification particulière). Pufendorf regarded treaties valid from signature and thought ratification superfluous.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document