Date of Publication:
Kristen David Adams, Can Promise Enforcement Save Affordable Housing in the United States?, 41 San Diego L. Rev. 643 (2004)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Roy Balleste, The International Status of Jerusalem: The Legacy of Lasting Peace, 43 Revista de Derecho Puertorriqueno 249 (2004)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Luz Estella Nagle, Colombia Asylum Seekers: What Practitioners Should Know about the Colombia Crisis, 18 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 441 (2004)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The decades-long internal armed conflict in Colombia has created a mass migration of Colombian nationals from all levels of Colombian society to flee to the United States in search of political asylum and a chance to start new lives. Many asylum seekers have been subjected to unspeakable abuse and persecution by illegal armed groups and political movements that employ violence to assert power over citizens. The government has been largely unable to protect many people caught up in political turmoil, in part due institutional corruption and the effects of Colombia being a weak state in terms of its government institutions and inability to protect the constitutional and human rights of all Colombian citizens. While many asylum seekers have legitimate claims for asylum in the United States, at the same time, some Colombians seek to misuse asylum protections as a way to gain entry into the United States. The author suggests that a “formula” circulates throughout the Colombian immigrant community for unscrupulous individuals to follow to make claims for asylum for which they are not entitled. This article examines real claims for asylum and how some Colombians rely on the naiveté of American lawyers and judges to juice the system and gain asylum under false and manufactured pretenses. The article weaves a cautionary tale for what immigration lawyers should know about what is really happening in Colombia and what warning signs they should look for in determining the veracity of Colombian asylum claims.
Date of Publication:
Luz Estella Nagle, Placing Blame Where Blame is Due: The Culpability of Illegal Armed Groups and Narcotraffickers in Colombia’s Environmental and Human Rights Catastrophes, 29 William and Mary Envtl. L. and Policy Review 1 (2004)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Environmental devastation of man-made origin threaten some of the most sensitive regions of Colombia, where the biodiversity found there is among the most unique in the world. Deforestation due to the cultivation and processing of coca and opium, the collateral damage to the environment from drug interdiction and eradication programs, and the slash and burn agriculture practiced by farmers involved in drug production and displaced indigenous groups forced out of their homelands by drug traffickers have had a drastic impact on Colombia’s precious national resources. The spillover effect of drug trafficking has also impacted sensitive environments in neighboring states, as well. For too long, the illegal armed groups and narcotraffickers causing the environmental devastation have gone without being held accountable for their damaging practices, and the inability of the Colombian government to confront drug-related environmental damage has resulted in increased stress on Colombia biodiversity and indigenous territories. This article examines the impact of drug cultivation and processing on the Colombian environment, the laws and enforcement capacity of the nation to fight it, and looks at how the nation and the international community can curtail the loss of more of Colombia’s natural treasures.
Date of Publication:
Kirsten K. Davis and Tamara Herrera, The ALWD Citation Manual: A Practice-Driven Improvement, 40 Arizona Attorney 24 (2004)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article describes the reasons for the ALWD manual, the similarities and differences between the ALWD Manual and Bluebook, and describes why the ALWD Manual is a both a useful teaching and citation tool.
Date of Publication:
Roy Balleste, Blogs in Law Libraries – Web Logs Offer an Electronic Alternative to Journals and Newsletters, 8 AALL Spectrum 8 (2004)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Kirsten K. Davis, Three Key Plays for the Writing Coach, 40 Arizona Attorney 12 (2004)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article describes techniques a supervising lawyer can use to give feedback to other lawyers on writing projects.
Date of Publication:
Judith A.M. Scully, Eugenics, Women of Color and Reproductive Health: The Saga Continues, 1 Africalogical Perspectives (2004)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
D. Benjamin Barros, The Police Power and the Takings Clause, 58 U. Miami L. Rev. 471 (2004)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
One of the more enduring puzzles in constitutional law is the problem of regulatory takings, and it has become something of a ritual to begin articles on the issue by noting the widespread confusion that the doctrine has caused. This Article seeks to clarify the regulatory takings debate by examining the scope and nature of the police power and discussing its relationship with the Just Compensation Clause.
The recent increase in federal regulation notwithstanding, the regulatory takings doctrine is primarily the product of challenges to state police power regulations. But despite the centrality of the police power to the problem of regulatory takings, an observation made nearly one hundred years ago still holds true today: No phrase is more frequently used and at the same time less understood. Contemporary regulatory takings jurisprudence is plagued by misunderstandings about the police power, in part because no one has seriously attempted to analyze or define the police power since 1907 - fifteen years before the landmark regulatory takings case Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon was decided by the United States Supreme Court.
The uncertainty and confusion over the police power, however, is unnecessary. The term police power was introduced and defined by the Supreme Court, and has a clear meaning as a concept of American constitutional law - though one that unfortunately has been ignored in contemporary takings jurisprudence. The purpose of this Article is to explore the precise nature of the police power and its lessons for clarifying the regulatory takings debate.
Part I of this Article addresses the question: What is the police power? It begins by discussing the early federalism cases in which the Supreme Court introduced and defined the phrase police power to be synonymous with the entirety of the states' sovereign power. It then examines the practical development of police regulations in the state courts, including the landmark decision Commonwealth v. Alger and the evolution from community-based common-law regulation toward the modern regulatory state. Finally, it discusses various attempts to limit the scope of the police power, from Lochner-era substantive due process to various academic definitions of the police power based on political theory. Part I concludes that the police power, as a concept of American constitutional law, is synonymous with the entirety of the sovereign power of the states that remained after the constitutional grant of limited powers to the federal government.
Part II discusses the interaction between the police power and the Just Compensation Clause. It begins with the ambiguous foundation of modern regulatory takings, Justice Holmes's cryptic opinion in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon. Placing the holding in Mahon in the context of Holmes's prior writings on the police power and his substantive due process dissents shows that Holmes understood the broad scope of the police power while at the same time rejected the formalistic rule that exercises of the police power could never be takings. Part II then examines the historical record and text of the Just Compensation Clause, and concludes that the central holding in Mahon - that exercises of the police power can in some circumstances be takings - is correct when an exercise of the police power renders the property in question valueless, but not when the exercise of the police power results in a lesser diminution of the property's value.
Part II then looks to the nature and scope of the police power, and the history and text of the Just Compensation Clause, to make a few observations that help to clarify the regulatory takings problem. Much of the confusion in regulatory takings is due to a misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the police power, which has led to the regulatory takings question being framed in incorrect terms. Most significantly, recognition that the broad scope of the police power is not tied to the prevention of harm helps demonstrate that the character of the government act in question should have no place in the regulatory takings inquiry, and that its central role in contemporary regulatory takings cases is misplaced. When properly stated, the regulatory takings question should simply ask whether the government act has rendered the property in question valueless - if the answer is yes, then compensation is due. Finally, Part II concludes that despite their analytical incoherence, the Supreme Court's contemporary takings cases have reached results that are consistent with both the historical record and text of the Just Compensation Clause.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Book Review, Murder and the Reasonable Man, 27 Champion (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.