The United States of America is facing an important decision. Should illegal immigrants be allowed to obtain driver’s licenses? Thus far ten states and the District of Columbia as well as Puerto Rico have passed laws permitting this to come into fruition. The purpose of this thesis is to gain an understanding of the significance that licensing laws have on this country. This thesis will compare the views and beliefs of both the proponents and opponents to this law. This thesis also discusses how Florida is deeply affected due to its large Hispanic immigrant population. This issue is laden with passion and emotion due to the desire of many to see this group of people that are currently undocumented, have the ability to lead a more normal life and conversely the fear that allowing licenses will give undocumented aliens privileges of citizens and encourage illegal immigration. The views on these laws are divided throughout the nation. The lawfulness is examined in reference to rewarding and promoting illegal immigration and the cumulative negative effects that this can have on this country. The driver’s license requirements were analyzed for each individual state. News articles were researched and used to enrich the pros and cons on this topic. This research was then used to give a recommendation for Florida law

The United States has experienced several mass shootings in the past few years. It has been averaging one shooting every week in 2015, and something must be done about it. This problem appears to be limited to the United States since several other nations have been able to minimize, and almost eliminate the number of mass shootings. By taking an analysis of the gun laws of the United States with those of Australia and Canada it can be concluded that some aspects of strict gun control can reduce the number of mass shootings. Further, the United States should look at what other common law nations have done to reduce the number of mass shootings. The United States is also the only nation that recognizes a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and any legislation must address that right. Some ways to address strict gun control in the United States is to strengthen the background check system, add a liability insurance requirement, and strictly enforce culpable negligent statutes. Adding some elements of strict gun control will help minimize the amount, and impact of the shootings. Canada, and Australia both have active hunting communities that require the need for some legal firearms. A night at the movies, a day at school, or attending a church event should not bring about worry that an individual may get shot and killed by a deranged individual. Other similar nations have shown that rampage shootings do not have to be a side effect of living in a free society.

With recent and contentious Supreme Court cases dealing with corporate constitutional rights, such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), as well as with the appointment of a new justice, the time is particularly ripe for evaluations of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area, including predictions about the future of this line of cases. The purpose of this thesis is to establish a better understanding of the historical jurisprudential approach utilized by the Supreme Court to decide corporate constitutional rights by establishing the well-known doctrine of selective incorporation as an appropriate analogy. No other works attempt to frame the case history of corporate constitutional rights within a consistent doctrine, yet many works seek to evaluate and predict Court decisions in this area. This work will therefore create a new frame of reference for corporate constitutional rights, providing a new basis for interpretation and predictions. This thesis begins by conducting a thorough overview of both lines of cases, focusing on the establishment of each doctrine over time as well as the reasoning behind the Court’s use of this particular approach. Once a clear picture of both approaches has been ascertained, this thesis moves on to an overall comparison and evaluation of both approaches. In finding the process, intent, and overall effect of both jurisprudential approaches to be the same, the use of selective incorporation as an analogy for the Supreme Court’s approach to corporate constitutional rights gives way to predictions about the future of corporate constitutional rights. Considering the relevant views expressed by the new justice, Neil Gorsuch, and the previous decisions of the Roberts Court, this analogy provides solid evidence for predicting continued expansion of corporate constitutional rights, including such areas as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and perhaps even rights of the accused. The comparative approach used in this thesis, as well as the analogy it establishes, can also be revisited as new Court decisions are made and as the makeup of the Court changes overtime.

The intent of this thesis is to examine the future of the third-party doctrine with the proliferation of technology and the online data we are surrounded with daily, specifically after the United States Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter v. United States. In order to better understand the Supreme Court's reasoning in that case, this thesis will review the history of the third-party doctrine and its roots in United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland. A review of Fourth Amendment history and jurisprudence is also crucial to this thesis, as it is imperative that individuals do not forfeit their Constitutional guarantees for the benefit of living in a technologically advanced society. This requires an understanding of the modern-day functional equivalents of "papers" and "effects." Furthermore, this thesis will ultimately answer the following question: Why is it legally significant that we protect at least some data that comes from technologies that our forefathers could have never imagined under the Fourth Amendment? Looking to the future, this thesis will contemplate solutions on how to move forward in this technology era. It will scrutinize the relevancy of the third-party doctrine due to the rise of technology and the enormous amount of information held about us by third parties. In the past, the Third-Party Doctrine may have been good law, but that time has passed. It is time for the Third-Party Doctrine to be abolished so the Fourth Amendment can join the 21st Century.

While reading a news article about the upcoming presidential election one day, I noticed a trend. The vast majority of political articles discuss what the federal government should do, but almost never cover what it could do. In elementary school, American children are taught that the Constitution, a 4,543-word document, is the place from which all federal power is derived; but the Constitution says nothing about the regulation of travel, narcotics, or the vast majority of other areas that affect the way we live our daily lives, so where does that power come from? After some preliminary research, I discovered that a great deal of it comes from how the Supreme Court has interpreted two Constitutional Clauses in particular (The Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause) and decided to dig deeper. This thesis is a product of that research. Through a historical overview of Supreme Court jurisprudence on these two clauses, this thesis will reveal that, one case at a time, federal power has gradually expanded through the centuries and shows no sign of slowing, the effect of which is the degradation and potential devolution of American federalism, the backbone upon which this country was founded.

Substantive due process has been of great importance to the decision of many Supreme Court cases since its beginning. Since its inception in Lochner v. New York,[1] the Supreme Court has used the theory of substantive due process in order to grant numerous rights to individuals and this theory has been interpreted differently by each Justice that has crossed its path. This thesis will explain how recent changes in the composition of the United States Supreme Court make it likely that judicial opinions involving substantive due process will be decided differently. The United States Supreme Court’s future substantive due process jurisprudence will narrow the reach of Substantive Due Process. Justices and their past opinions as well as statements on their analysis of substantive due process will be scrutinized in order to come to this conclusion. This thesis will examine the evolution of substantive due process as well as how each Justice’s distinct views affect it within the Supreme Court’s composition. By determining how the Supreme Court is most likely to proceed and examining the rights already granted through substantive due process this thesis will come to a determination on whether the protection of the rights granted to individuals would be maintained. [1] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937 (1905)

Across the country, African American defendants are being discriminated against in the criminal courts and by juries, particularly in capital cases.[1] This assertion is supported by two lines of research. First, an analysis of Supreme Court decisions focusing on the racial impact on voir dire. Second, social-legal studies on juror decision making have demonstrated legal and socio-legal histories providing evidence that demonstrate there is a racial bias in our system. Based on these findings, this paper sets forth several legal and policy recommendations to improve the fair adjudication of African American defendants charged with capital crimes. [1] Jack Glaser, Karin D. Martin, Kimberly B. Kahn, Possibility of Death Sentence Has Divergent Effect on Verdicts for Black and White Defendants (2015).

Vaccines are one of the greatest modern medical inventions. Even though vaccines have saved lives, however, no medical product is proven to be completely safe. Vaccines can have rare and sometimes deadly reactions. To address such occurrences, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) hosts a program that reviews petitions for compensation of injuries caused by vaccination. The program is called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP was established in 1986 to reduce the number of product liability lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers that threatened to increase the cost of vaccines and lower life-saving vaccine administration to millions of people. In 2020, through the Health Resources and Services Administration, the HHS proposed a revision to the VICP. Specifically, the HHS proposed removing an injury called Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) from the VICP's no-fault compensation table. The proposed revision of the removal of SIRVA has been the source for debate because it is clear through the establishment of the VICP's founding document that compensation for injuries caused by vaccine administration is required. The HHS is challenging the requirement of compensation for vaccine-related injuries through its proposed revision to the VICP's compensation table. By confronting the HHS's proposal for revision to the Vaccine Injury Table, this thesis demonstrates how existing policy prevents the HHS from making the revision. Using an analysis of precedent statutes and public health research, this thesis argues for the continued coverage of SIRVA with the current VICP.

This thesis will examine the Combating Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act of Florida's discriminatory nature, vague provisions, and constitutional violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In carrying out this examination, this thesis will analyze case law, law reviews, bill analysis as provided by the Florida legislature, and similar legislation that has been proposed both by other states as well as on the federal level.

Can Americans who join terrorist organizations and fight against United States troops be charged with treason? Does the January 6th riot in Washington D.C. constitute “levying war”? Despite ongoing acts of levying war, and providing aid and comfort to enemies, the United States has not had a treason conviction since the 1950's. Courts and prosecutors actively avoid the charge, leading to a substantial lack of case law and legal guidance. Today, legal scholars disagree on how the Treason Clause should be applied. In this thesis, I discuss the disappearance of treason, and analyze opposing views on how the treason charge should be utilized in the twenty-first century. Specifically, I argue that treason holds significant constitutional importance, and should return as a viable charge in criminal law.