Fall 2020
The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act: Understanding the President’s Power to Deploy the Military on American Soil
The United States military has long been seen as a unit of defense and protection overseas. However, due to recent events, such as the inhumane murder of George Floyd and the civil unrest that followed, this consideration to deploy the military on American soil has been brought to the forefront of the public’s attention. Notably, President Trump remarked that he would invoke two laws that would allow him to suppress any civil unrest that may pose a threat to American sovereignty. Of course, the president’s considerations are not raised without concern, anxiety, and misinformation, as such laws may create a potential rift between the valued concept of American liberty and a potentially misused autocratic dictatorship. Therefore, to ease public understanding, we will examine the president’s powers in regard to deploying troops on American soil, particularly via two laws that grant this power to him: The Insurrection Act of 1807 and The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
Lawsuits Over the 2020 Presidential Election: Evidence of the Unrest in Politics and Division in America
The United States has a longstanding democratic tradition that has served as a model for other nations, but recent divisions have upended that tradition and raised questions with regard to the transfer of power between elected leaders. Because of dysfunctions in politics, the courts have become the last bastion of for maintaining order in the democratic process. At the creation of the United States of America, the founding fathers gave the judicial branch the power to adjudicate disputes according to law to protect the fabric of our country. It is incumbent upon the courts and the judicial system to be sure that the basic principles of democracy are protected, and that the government does not abuse its power, undermining the very institutions in which democracy is grounded.
On the Constitutionality of Charging In-state Tuition
In-state versus out-of-state tuition has emerged as a severe burden for students nationwide. The reason public colleges and universities have adopted this practice is because residents of the state pay state taxes and thus help fund the institutions they attend. Nonresidents do not contribute to the institutions they attend, and thus they pay more to make up for it. I discuss whether this presents a constitutional issue through the lens of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By this clause, states are not permitted to discriminate against nonresidents unless there is a legitimate reason. I argue, through both a qualitative and quantitative analysis, that this practice is unconstitutional by the Privileges and Immunities Clause because states charge nonresidents excessively and not just to compensate for the fact that nonresidents do not pay state tax. This practice can be legal, however, through Supreme Court precedent, by only charging enough so that the disparity in taxes is eliminated.
Wildfire Litigation and a Crisis of Culpability
The summer of 2020 set a new record for the amount of land burned by wildfires in a single year, reaching an astounding figure of four million acres. This nearly doubles the previous record. In 2018, the United States saw its largest wildfire since 1918; the “Camp Fire” devastated the town of Paradise in northern California, killing 85 people and wreaking havoc in the city for 17 days. Researchers attribute the increasing intensity and range of these wildfires to climate change. Drier and hotter climates facilitate the spread of fires and make them less predictable. However, the law was not built with this increasingly precarious climate in mind. The legal system does not hold the government accountable for its facilitation, perpetuation, and negligence of environmental injustices that result from anthropogenic climate change. Consequently, wildfire litigation has resulted in a crisis of liability that ultimately harms the victims it purports to protect.
The Case for the Federal Decriminalization of Narcotics in the United States
The opioid epidemic is perhaps the most devastating public health crisis facing the contemporary United States. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in a twelve-month period that ended in February of 2019, 15,349 people died of an overdose on heroin and 32,656 people died of an overdose on synthetic opioids other than methadone. Over 130 people die of an overdose on opioid-related drug overdoses every day. The magnitude of the opioid epidemic warrants a far greater — and more effective — response than the lukewarm approaches initiated by the government. This article shines a light on the implications of the federal decriminalization of narcotics.
To Pack or Not to Pack?
The vice presidential debate of 2020 was a sensational event, even ignoring the fly that landed and remained for several minutes on Vice President Mike Pence’s crop of snow-white hair. Moderator Susan Page challenged Pence and California Senator Kamala Harris on a number of pertinent issues, including coronavirus (for which President Trump had recently tested positive), the economy, race, and foreign and domestic policy. A particularly contentious topic rested in Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, whose nomination in late September sparked controversy due to its proximity to Election Day.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales and the Legal Obligations of Police
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that police departments have no affirmative obligation to enforce restraining orders granted by the state. The case in question, Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales (2005), hinged on granular, semantic analysis of the word “shall” and the definition of “entitlement” for the purposes of the 14th Amendment, but the ultimate decision had far-reaching implications for citizens seeking protection from their government by creating the precedent that police departments have no affirmative obligation to protect citizens. In light of the ongoing national reckoning about the role of police in American society, it is necessary to analyze the legal obligations on police behavior and how legal systems can be improved to make governments more accountable to the people they purport to serve.
The Case for Re-Enfranchisement Reform
Today, state legislatures are largely responsible for determining felon re-enfranchisement practices. This article argues that this instance of state's rights violates principle set forth by the separation of powers, and allows for the systemic silencing of minority populations. Moreover, we postulate that the only equitable solution to this is to federalize the issue of voter re-enfranchisement and open it up to a national referendum.
The Omittance of Political Parties from the Constitution
My article analyzes the relationship between the Constitution and political parties. Specifically, I discuss how the omission of political parties has damaged the federal government and its inner workings. Drawing on evidence from statements made by the Founding Fathers and using modern examples and statistics, I show that the intentional protections against partisanship in the Constitutions are very weak in practice because they allow for too much partisan control. I end with the conclusion that partisanship has disrupted the government despite attempts to stop it.
Politics Where There Shouldn't Be: The Senate's Politicization of the Supreme Court
In the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg’s death, the American people have watched as President Trump attempts to fill her seat on the Supreme Court. Under Article II, Section II of the Constitution of the United States, it is the duty of a sitting President to nominate a judge to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. It may be the duty of the President to nominate a judge, but it is up to the Senate to consider and confirm that nominee. Even more precisely, it is the civil duty of the Senate to consider all nominees, regardless of party. However, in recent times, the Republican-led Senate has used its power to politicize an area of the government where politics are not welcome: the Supreme Court.
Segregation as Exclusion
Segregation is not often thought of as a modern word so much as a 1960s problem. Yet, segregation persists in our public schools, and many American children experience it to an even greater degree than our counterparts in the sixties and seventies. While many continue to push for change, some have questioned whether or not integration was ever a worthy pursuit. In this article, I examine where we went wrong in the integration battle. I argue that we fundamentally misunderstand the goal of integration because we have fundamentally misunderstood why segregation is wrong. I examine both the legal history of segregation and draw on Elizabeth Anderson’s social theory about what she calls “the imperative of integration.” Ultimately, I will argue that integration is integral to a just society, and we have underappreciated its significance in our legal system.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia and the Expansion of Free Exercise Claims
In 2018, Philadelphia banned Catholic Social Services (CSS), a church-based charity organization, from participating in the city’s foster care system because they refused to place children with same-sex couples. Citing their Catholic beliefs, CSS argued that the free exercise clause entitled them to the right to refuse to license qualified same-sex couples to be foster parents purely on the basis of their sexuality. Analyzing the questions presented in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia reveals that the Supreme Court is increasingly willing to entertain broad claims about the extent of the free exercise clause. With the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court’s likely move toward a more expansive view of religious freedom will have massive implications for LGBT+ rights, access to reproductive health services, and other constitutional and statutory rights that many Americans hold dear.