No description available.

Not available / text

This paper examines the various responses of progressive white southern clergy to school desegregation events in Arkansas. I investigate why no major white clerical movement emerged to support civil rights, arguing that internal and external factors limited their genuinely motivated witness. National and local clergy endorsed Brown for both religious and practical reasons, arguing that segregation was counter to Christian brotherhood and hurt worldwide evangelism. However, like William Chafe’s progressives in Greensboro, too many clergy worked for school desegregation but ignored African American voices, believing that their demands unnecessarily inflamed the local opposition and unfortunately urged patience and civility instead of justice. Furthermore, clerical intervention proved to be less effective than ministers expected. Sympathetic clergy experienced physical harassment and congregational opposition for speaking out, and local communities simply ignore their messages.

Much discussed and little understood, Richard Nixon's southern strategy demands scrutiny. A brief survey of the literature suggests that study on this controversial topic has reached an impasse. Southern historians keen to emphasise the importance of class in the region's partisan development over the last fifty years insist that any southern strategy predicated on racialised appeals to disaffected white conservatives was doomed to failure. Conversely, conventional accounts of the Nixon era remain wedded to the view that the southern strategy represented a successful devil's bargain whereby an avaricious Californian exchanged the promise of racial justice for black southerners in return for white Dixie's electoral votes. Most sobering of all are political scientists concerned with executive power, who evidence the limited discretion enjoyed by presidents to implement any agenda inimical to the corporate will of the federal bureaucracy. Since Nixon's executive departments were brimming with Democratic holdovers from the Kennedy and Johnson years, the question of whether or not the President demanded concessions to southern racists apparently becomes more or less irrelevant: the 'fourth branch' of the federal government inevitably ensured that a southern strategy was simply impossible to execute. In reality, much of this stalemate is the product of academic territorial warfare on the battleground of a subject wide open to multiple interpretations. A southern historian keen to showcase the importance of his local research is likely to show little interest in evidence that a President based in Washington D.C. could initiate social change in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Similarly, political scientists fighting an unrewarding battle to emphasise the autonomy of federal departments are naturally disinclined to highlight examples of presidential willpower altering bureaucratic culture. Nevertheless, an intriguing paradox remains in evidence. Despite leaning more towards the political philosophy of antediluvian white southerners than the demands of black Americans, Richard Nixon presided over a period of such fundamental social reconstruction below the Mason-Dixie line that he could legitimately claim to have desegregated more southern schools than any other President in history. Whilst a raft of excellent monologues demonstrating the impact of local movements down South on national politics have been published over the last decade, few have even attempted to explain this peculiar phenomenon. As Matthew Lassiter observed in a Journal of American History roundtable on American conservatism in December 2011, 'the recent pendulum swing has overstated the case for a rightward shift in American politics by focusing too narrowly on partisan narratives and specific election cycles rather than on the more complex dynamics of political culture, political economy, and public policy.' The purpose of this thesis is to explain how a President notorious for pursuing the votes of white segregationists rested at the head of a federal government that ruthlessly dismantled Jim Crow. By incorporating the range of methodologies elucidated above, it will identify exactly how much influence President Nixon and his executive officers exerted over civil rights policy. Was Nixon's reactionary agenda thwarted by over-mighty bureaucrats? Or did the President act more responsibly than the majority of commentators have admitted?

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, the Supreme Court ruled that students have speech rights in the school environment unless the speech causes or is likely to cause 1) a substantial disruption, or 2) interferes with the rights of others. The Supreme Court has yet to hear a case involving school officials' authority to regulate electronically-delivered derogatory student speech, and no uniform standard currently exists for determining when school authorities can discipline students for such speech when it occurs off campus without violating students' First Amendment rights. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine 19 federal and state court decisions in which school authorities were sued for disciplining students for electronically delivered, derogatory speech. Eighteen of these cases involved student speech that demeaned or defamed school teachers or administrators. Only one involved speech that demeaned another student. Each case was analyzed to identify significant factors in court holdings to provide a basis for the construction of a uniform legal standard for determining when school authorities can discipline students for this type of speech. The full application of Tinker's first and second prongs will provide school officials the authority needed to address this growing problem while still protecting legitimate off-campus student cyber expression. Predictions of future court holdings and policy recommendations are included.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States has transferred close to a hundred individuals suspected of terrorism to foreign jurisdictions through a process known as extraordinary rendition. This is an infamous program that allows for the transfer of individuals to a foreign jurisdiction for interrogation, detention, or trial. While the use of extraordinary rendition attracts widespread controversy regarding its use and legality, it remains a vital tool for combating international terrorism. Evidence in this thesis lends support to extraordinary rendition program, but recognizes that while the program strengthens the country’s ability to gather vital intelligence to combat terrorism, there are methods to improve the program. The extraordinary rendition program requires an assessment of the totality of circumstances before a extraordinary rendition is permitted; reliance on diplomatic assurances from countries that hold a good human rights record; and subsequent monitoring of individuals rendered to foreign states to ensure that transfers comply with U.S. and international law. Evidence suggests that extraordinary rendition aids in the ability to gather sensitive intelligence and serves as a gathering tool used by American presidents to preserve freedom and peace; however, in the eyes of critics, this program represents a perversely autonomous and un-American legal maneuver that avoids due process. This thesis seeks to discuss common misconceptions associated with the extraordinary rendition program and identify the major points of controversy. The first part explores the history of the extraordinary rendition program and provides an understanding of its roots and procedures. The second part, discusses the executive branch’s attempts to conduct extraordinary renditions morally and responsibly, and examines the legal oversight and accountability gaps surrounding the program. Part three identifies the line of authority empowering the President to conduct extraordinary renditions. It also outlines the struggle of the legislative, judicial and executive branches to strengthen the extraordinary rendition program’s compliance with the rule of law by increasing oversight and accountability. Finally, Part four discusses the future of the extraordinary rendition program. The discussion presents possible solutions to correct oversight and accountability problems and suggests a multi-faceted approach that raises the bar for extraordinary renditions, thereby closing the oversight and accountability gaps.

Thesis (LLM)--University of Stellenbosch, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis examines the constitutional law of equality, non-discrimination and affirmative action in Namibia, and compares it to that of South Africa and the United States. Namibian judicial interpretation in these areas seeks to balance the need to safeguard the internationally recognized human rights that the Namibian Constitution guarantees with the need to ensure that Namibian constitutional law is seen as grounded in Namibia's historical experience and culture. This latter imperative derives from the Namibian Constitution's origins in an international negotiation process, which has led to some popular criticism of the Constitution as foreign and imposed. As a result, Namibian courts have been careful to ensure that reliance on foreign precedent (where there is no local authority) does not diminish the Constitution's unique character and its suitability to the Namibian situation. To that end, the Namibian courts have given great weight to the role of current Namibian societal values in constitutional interpretation. In the areas of equality, nondiscrimination and affirmative action, Namibian courts have generally followed the South African approach, except with respect to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The author concludes that the adoption of the South African approach generally makes sense for Namibia, and specifically criticizes the Namibian courts' approach to sexual orientation discrimination. The statutes enacted in Namibia to carry out the Constitution's equality and nondiscrimination guarantees, including in the area of affirmative action, are also considered. While these statutes have not yet been subject to judicial interpretation, it seems likely that future cases presenting issues arising under these statutes will necessitate the same balancing referred to above. The thesis begins with an overview of each Constitution's textual treatment of equality, non-discrimination and affirmative action, and a discussion comparing the background and basic structure of the three Constitutions. It then focuses on the judicial and legislative interpretation of the concepts of equality and nondiscrimination in Namibia, as compared to that in South Africa and the US. Following that, the author discusses the judicial and legislative interpretation of the concept of affirmative action in Namibia, also as compared to that in South Africa and the United States. The thesis ends with the author's conclusions and some predictions as to how the Namibian courts might rule on certain issues that seem likely to arise in these areas in the future. / LLM Tesis deur Elizabeth Kandravy Cassidy, '''n Delikate Balans: Gelykheid, nie-diskrimnasie en gelykberegtiging in Namibiese staatsreg - 'n vergelykende studie met Suid-Afrikaanse en Amerikaanse Staatsreg" (2002) Hierdie tesis ondersoek die staatsregtelike beskerming van gelykheid, niediskriminasie en gelykberegtiging in Namibië in 'n regsvergelykende studie van Suid- Afrikaanse en Amerikaanse staatsreg. Namibiese geregtelike interpretasie op hierdie gebied poog om 'n balans te handhaaf tussen die behoefte om internasionaal erkende menseregte deur die Namibiese grondwet te waarborg en die behoefte om te verseker dat die grondslag van die Namibiese staatsreg soos gevestig in sy geskiedenis en kultuur behoue bly. Laasgenoemde beweegrede spruit voort uit die feit dat die Namibiese grondwet sy oorsprong te danke het aan 'n internasionale onderhandelingsproses, wat gelei het tot die algemene siening dat die grondwet vreemd is en nie uit eie geledere afgedwing word nie. Gevolglik steun die Namibiese howe met omsigtigheid op buitelandse presedente (waar daar geen plaaslike gesag is nie) met die oog op behoud van die grondwet se unieke karakter en gepastheid binne die Namibiese konteks. Met hierdie doel voor oë, plaas die Namibiese howe in grondwetlike interpretasie, groter klem op die rol van kontemporêre gemeenskapswaardes in Namibië. Op die gebied van gelykheid, nie-diskriminasie en gelykberegtiging volg die Namibiese howe oor die algemeen die Suid-Afrikaanse benadering, behalwe in die geval van diskriminasie op grond van seksuele oriëntasie. Die skrywer kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat die toepassing van die Suid-Afrikaanse benadering in die algemeen sinvol is binne die Namibiese konteks and kritiseer die Namibiese howe se benadering tot diskriminasie op grond van seksuele orientasie. Die wetgewing wat in Namibië uitgevaardig is om die grondwetlik gewaarborgde gelykheid en nie-diskriminasie, insluitend gelykberegtiging te verseker word ook ondersoek. Alhoewel hierdie wetgewing nog nie aan geregtelike interpretasie onderwerp is nie, blyk dit dat toekomstige uitsprake waar die wetgewing ter sprake kom ook die balansering van hierdie belange sal noodsaak. Die tesis begin met 'n oorsigtelike bespreking van die benadering tot gelykheid, niediskriminasie en gelykberegtiging van die onderskeie grondwette en 'n regsvergelykende bespreking van die agtergrond en basiese struktuur van die drie grondwette. Vervolgens fokus die tesis op die geregtelike interpretasie van die beginsels van gelykheid en nie-diskriminasie in Namibië, in vergelyking met Suid- Afrika en die Verenigde State. Daarna bepreek die skrywer die geregtelike en wetgewende interpretasie van die beginsel van gelykgeregtiging in Namibië, ook in 'n regsvergelyking met die Suid-Afrikaanse en Amerikaanse posisie. Die tesis sluit af met die skrywer se gevolgtrekkings en 'n paar voorspellings oor die moontlike benadering wat die Namibiese howe in die toekoms sal volg tot sekere regskwessies wat in hierdie vakgebied kan voorkom.

This thesis studies the Supreme Court decision, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) and its historical context, using a narrative perspective and reviewing aspects of narrative viewpoints with reference to legal studies in order to introduce the present study as a method of assessing narratives in legal settings. The study reviews the Supreme Court decision to reveal its arguments and focuses on the context of the case through the presentation of the public story, the institutional story, and the ethnic Japanese story, which are analyzed using Walter Fisher's narrative perspective. The study concludes that the narrative paradigm is useful for assessing stories in the law because it enables the critic to examine both the emotional and logical reasoning that determine the outcomes of the cases.