In recent years there has been a tendency for people throughout the sports world to talk about the possibilities of a number of young athletes becoming professional athletes right out of high school. This subject is one of great interest. This timely subject is extremely important because of the perceived influx of young teenage athletes entering the professional ranks. With the media covering the stories of such individuals as Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Freddy Adu, and the suit brought against the National Football League by Maurice Clarett, this has developed into a hot button subject with multiple points of view, all of which will be explored in my research project. My intention in pursuing this research is to examine the pros and cons of both enacting minimum age requirements in professional sports and the social implications of following through with either option. There are a number of points of view and opinions on this subject and deservedly so, because the decisions that the professional leagues make will have far reaching implications for generations to come for the athletes themselves, their families, colleges, universities, and even the economy. When discussing a controversial subject such as this one, it is important to be aware that the debate begins much earlier than at that moment when a teenage athlete decides to make the jump from high school or even junior athletics into the professional leagues; it begins the moment a young athlete shows superior talent. This project will examine in depth the aspects of the arguments both for and against age requirements in sports.

Creditors "loosely lend" funds to third world nations controlled by despotic governments who in turn use the funds for their personal gain. According to the Doctrine of Odious Debts, debts incurred through the interests of corrupt leaders are odious and not enforceable. South Africa is a third world nation that is hindered from progress because they are drowning in debts incurred during the unjust apartheid era. This research examines the application of the doctrine of odious debts to South Africa and the legal effects of its application.

The standing doctrine is an evolving judicial tool to limit cases in the courtroom. However, the issue of how citizens are granted standing in environmental litigation remains unclear. This thesis will analyze the evolution of the standing doctrine and the requirements for future environmental litigation through an analysis of the more prominent cases that set the historical precedent. Particularly, this thesis is focused through the lens of climate change and the additional hurdles its standing requirements can bring to litigation brought by individual citizens. Jurisdiction has become a very complex issue in climate change lawsuits. While at first glance it may seem that causation is the largest obstacle for climate change plaintiffs, injury is equally difficult to prove. This thesis looks at the use of present and future injury in addressing the requirements for standing, as well as whether the injury can be redressed by the courts. Standing, which is a threshold issue for any court, has been limited to past harm. However, looking at issues regarding climate change requires the court to consider how the present impacts the future of litigation. Climate change litigation brings a new angle to these debates and will force the courts to reevaluate their previous conclusions.

The focus of this thesis is to explore the legality, the issues, and the remedy to a controversial statute in the State of Illinois. This thesis will explain how the First Amendment relates to the Illinois statute and its desire of a citizen is right to report information that is not being granted. Moreover, this paper will further go into a recent legislative bill to amend the Illinois statute, its failure, the media surrounding the issue, and the consequences of amending or not amending the statute. It will further review state law in regard to citizens recording police officers, and explain how some states deal with the statute.

Following the decision rendered in Obergefell v. Hodges, there have been unabating talk as to how courts may rule on disputed matters involving same-sex marriages. One specific aspect this thesis intends to focus on is what to expect from custody rulings following dissolutions of same-sex marriages. The purpose of this thesis is to interpret just how courts may rule regarding child custody in same-sex divorces, based on the concept of stare decisis. Given the fresh face of marriage equality in America, there is a lack of research done in the area. This thesis will serve as a substructure and reference for other studies of its kind. Through a focus on defining factors in same-sex relationships as well as factors often identified in heterosexual relationships, this thesis will be able to compare the two to determine what appropriate outcomes courts may result to in cases of child custody following same-sex dissolutions of marriage. This thesis will compile heterosexual cases involving more role-based relationships such as the caregiver and provider as well as collect cases that reflect the egalitarian lifestyle we know to be present in same-sex couples to get a general idea of how courts may rule when both parents are at an equal standing.

It is clear that D.U.I related accidents (driving under the influence) are a highly destructive, and often preventable, occurrence in our society. In response to this, many states in the past decade or so have started to implement D.U.I court programs modeled after drug court programs. Florida, like many other states in the U.S., have multiple active D.U.I court program districts. As of this time, there are currently four active D.U.I. court programs in Florida. These D.U.I. court programs, like drug court, are designed to focus on and facilitate rehabilitative measures against offenders whom have multiple D.U.I offenses. Studies on this relatively new court program, in relation to lowering the recidivism rate on the program's participators, have mostly shown to be effective in lowering the recidivism rate and overall court costs. However, there have been studies that cast doubt on the overall effectiveness on the recidivism rate. There is also little to no amount of studies and data in regard to Florida's D.U.I. court programs. Although understudied, Florida D.U.I courts show equal potential as many other studied D.U.I. courts throughout the U.S. in effecting the recidivism rate of D.U.I. offenders. The intent of this thesis is to explore the feasibility and method of conducting research on the court program designs of each Florida's DU.I. courts, and the recidivism rate of those who successfully underwent the court programs. The present study evaluates the size, scope, and method of each of the potential DU.I. court program research methods on the currently active D.U.I. courts in Florida.

The Supreme Court Justices of the United States sit on the highest court of the land. The justices have the ultimate say as to the meaning of the Constitution, and their role could aptly be summarized as interpreters of the Constitution. They decide what the words of the nation's founding document mean and therefore help to determine the rule of law for the social, political, and economic areas of society. To help them analyze the text of the Constitution and decide what it means and subsequently apply it to cases, justices use constitutional methodologies. Constitutional methodologies are algorithms or ways of thinking about provisions of the Constitution that guide a justice's reasoning and application of the Constitution to cases. These different structured methods of analysis seem to be fair and objective ways of interpreting the Constitution and deciding cases, yet this thesis argues the opposite. The argument expounded in this thesis is that constitutional methodologies instead act as smoke screens, a sort of constitutional camouflage, that allow a justice to decide a constitutional question not according to some objective standard but rather by however they feel it should be decided according to their beliefs and values. These methodologies use their theories, arguments, and philosophies to legitimize interpreting the Constitution a certain way, but this thesis shows that they inevitably lead a justice down a camouflaged path towards a single subjective decision. Multiple justices using the same constitutional methodology to analyze the same constitutional issue could come to different conclusions based on the values they hold and how they utilize the methodology. This subjective decision hides behind the structured methods of analysis purported by constitutional methodologies, and ultimately makes them more akin to smoke screens rather than objective mechanisms for interpreting and applying the Constitution.

In criminal cases, poor individuals must qualify as legally indigent to receive legal representation. In civil cases, poor and indigent individuals must find their own resources to support themselves since the government does not guarantee counsel. Without counsel, poor and indigent individuals are forced to find legal representation for these cases on their own, which can be difficult considering the expenses of fees and fines. Cognitive processes, including bias and stereotypes, create a barrier in advocacy because they cloud judgement of decision-makers, which can diminish the voice of this vulnerable community. Barriers like these create an invisible wall where limited court access restricts poor and indigent people. While there are many factors that contribute to this problem, the legal community has a responsibility to increase and promote education on reducing the impact of the invisible wall towards vulnerable communities.

The field of' Liability for Animals' appears at first sight to be only of minor interest to academics. This, however, is a false syllogism as incidents involving animals are frequent, and courts constantly deal with claims regarding damages for injuries caused by animals. Indeed, in many countries the law of animals forms special subject. With respect to English law for instance Lord Simonds, using the metaphor of a train, remarked that the Common Law of torts has developed historically in separate compartments and that beasts have travelled in a compartment of their own. 1 However, it is also true, that within this "tort-train" a few animals lurking in the other compartments marked 'Negligence or Nuisance' may also be found.

The value of free speech is deeply rooted in democratic principles designed to foster a marketplace of ideas where diverse viewpoints thrive and enable accountability and social progress. Simultaneously, academic freedom is essential for the pursuit of knowledge. Yet both must be exercised responsibly. This thesis examines the intricate relationship between free speech, academic freedom, and humanistic concerns like respect, inclusivity, and diversity. By exploring pivotal court cases such as Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), Bonnell v. Lorenzo (2001), Axson-Flynn v. Johnson (2004), Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), and Morse v. Frederick (2007), this paper illustrates the delicate balance needed in educational settings. The analysis suggests that schools should establish clear speech policies, prioritize education on responsible speech, and create committees to address speech-related concerns. An ideal policy balances court requirements, humanistic concerns, and promotes respectful dialogue while prohibiting harmful speech.