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.

Puerto Rico has been a United States territory since 1898. Since then, the island has remained in an ill-defined relationship with the United States, lacking autonomy and sovereignty. The Supreme Court and Congress have been the primary agents dealing with Puerto Rico's territorial trajectory. While the island has faced many setbacks throughout the years, this thesis asserts that the zenith in autonomy and sovereignty was reached in the 1950s, after two key legislative developments. This set forth an experiment in territorial administration. But the experiment was abandoned and closed in 2016, after two Supreme Court decisions and an Act of Congress sent Puerto Rico—the experiment—in retrograde motion. This thesis explores Puerto Rico's politico-legal developments, with a focus on the 1950s and 2016.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.