Literature regarding the Supreme Court's holdings in Establishment Clause cases suggests the Court's jurisprudence has been inconsistent. Because the Court had both upheld and invalidated challenged governmental actions that relate to religious practices or institutions, a broad overview of the Court's holdings in Establishment Clause cases seems to support that notion. But where does the inconsistency lie: in the tests and criteria used by court members or in the holdings themselves? This thesis suggests that when comparing categories and subsets of the Court's holdings in Establishment Clause cases to one another, the jurisprudence is in fact consistent. This thesis demonstrates where the consistency can be identified and measured in the Court's jurisprudence by analyzing the holdings. The thesis employs three models, Strict-Separationism, Non-Preferentialism, and Accommodationism, to create standardized categories of Supreme Court's holdings, as independent as possible of the reasoning, criteria, or tests applied to the case by the Court members. I grouped the cases included in this study into one or more categories based on which model(s) the Court's actual holding matched. Then I compared cases within each category of holdings to one another across variables (such as actual holding and case types) to measure consistency between the cases. I conclude with an examination of the measured consistency and explanation of identified patterns in the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause holdings. The data indicated that the Court's actual holdings matched the same projected holdings consistently when compared to cases with similar variables. / Master of Arts

The framers of the Constitution designed a document to be the "Supreme Law of the Land" and within its pages a branch of government, a federal judiciary, never before envisioned. The Constitution, along with the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, set the framework for building the strongest branch of government, the Supreme Court. Historical events and court decisions with few exceptions strengthened the power of the judiciary contributing to its authority. The Supreme Court Justices, by interpreting the Constitution and judging the legality of laws instituted by both state and federal legislatures, solidified its superior position in the government hierarchy. An examination of documents, case decisions, and the results of these decisions for the nation add credence to the assertion that of the three branches of government the strongest and most powerful was and is the Supreme Court.

Traditionally, systems of constitutional democracy fell into two categories: parliamentary sovereignty, characterized by the omnipotence of Parliament and the absence of any substantive limitations on its power; and judicial supremacy, characterized by the presence of restrictions on legislative power in the form of a judicially enforced, written constitution containing a bill of rights. Recently, scholars have noted that Canada’s Charter regime includes elements of both traditional systems and have proposed new ways of understanding the apparent “sharing” of legal authority between courts and legislatures in Canada. These “new models” incorporate several key features of the traditional models but purport to be distinctive, and more accurate, accounts of how legal authority is allocated. Key features of the new models include a bill of rights, judicial review of legislation, and the preservation of legislative finality over the bill of rights through an “override” mechanism. However, these new models fail to capture the division of lawmaking power that is formally entrenched in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, they do not provide an adequate account of how the legislative finality provided through the “override” mechanism distinguishes the new models from legislative supremacy. A proposed “hybrid” model accommodates the formal division of legal power in the Charter and raises new questions about the extent of legislative finality in Canadian constitutionalism. The hybrid model also explains Canada’s supposed lapse into de facto judicial supremacy as an indication of a nuanced and compartmentalized form of legislative supremacy. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA) / Democratic governance was traditionally thought to require a choice between parliamentary sovereignty, with no restrictions on legislative power, and judicial supremacy, with restrictions on legislative power in the form of a judicially enforced, written constitution containing a bill of rights. Recently, scholars noting that Canada’s legal system includes elements of both traditional systems have proposed new ways of understanding the “sharing” of legal authority between courts and legislatures. These “new models” incorporate a bill of rights but allow legislatures to ignore or override these rights, thus preserving an element of parliamentary sovereignty. However, these new models fail to capture the division of lawmaking power that is formally entrenched in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A new “hybrid” model accurately reflects this formal division of legal power and raises new challenges to the other new models of constitutionalism.

For over two decades, the United States imprisoned and detained hundreds of suspected terrorists at the United States Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. While many of these prisoners were suspected of being terrorists, no formal charges were ever levied against the detainees. All of the prisoners detained were considered non-citizens of the United States. They were not citizens of either Cuba or the United States. Instead, they were citizens of another country. While the legal precedent in the United States' territorial jurisdiction is that non-citizens are granted specific Constitutional rights, Guantánamo Bay was a legal black hole to which the United States had not claimed territorial jurisdiction. This paper seeks to understand if the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay held any Constitutional rights when they were brought to the Naval Base. Through the examination of the Supreme Court cases that dealt with non-citizen prisoners located outside of the United States borders and through the classification of the prisoners as unlawful enemy combatants, the question of the legal rights held by these prisoners will be answered. A better understanding of the events that transpired at Guantánamo Bay will allow the United States federal government and subsequent intelligence communities better insight into the rights that non-citizens possess.

No description available.

The United States has a drug issue that is perpetually problematic. Efforts are being made on every level of government to reduce drug use and deter current and potential future users. Some of these efforts however are putting citizen's rights at risk in a manner that threatens the United States Constitution that hails over both the state and federal governments. My thesis will examine Florida's avant-garde approach to simplifying drug convictions through unprecedented legislation that has already been ruled unconstitutional on its face by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The decade long struggle will soon culminate in the Florida Supreme Court, and if found unconstitutional, could potentially impact thousands of inmates among other legal consequences. Through literature review and case study I will discuss the history of this issue and conclude by discussing possible rulings of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Adkins, SC11-1878 (2D11-4559, 2nd DCA). In addition, I will analyze the case timeline that led to the legislative action which is being called into question in Adkins. I hypothesize that the ruling in Adkins will declare Florida's drug statute unconstitutional; however, I further presume that the currently incarcerated defendants will continue to serve their sentences virtually unaffected by the ruling, with some extraordinary exceptions. First, I will discuss the underlying legal premises, succeeded by an analysis of all pertinent case law and literature to assess the constitutionality of Florida's drug statute to further support my hypothesis. My goal for this thesis is to give perspective to the layperson as well as contribute to the statewide legal community through my organization of the subject, and analysis of case law.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the Affordable Care Act through an analysis of the United States Supreme Court's holding in The National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. In order to better understand the Supreme Court's reasoning in that case, this paper will first examine the history and the function of the Supreme Court, which will demonstrate the Court's power to either augment or diminish the power of the states in relation to the federal government. This paper will then discuss the background of the Affordable Care Act, the procedural history of the case, and the majority's analysis supporting its decision. The concurring and dissenting opinions of the other justices will be discussed to present the various viewpoints regarding the proper role of the federal government and the implications this case may have on federal/state conflict. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Department of Health and Human Services. The 5-4 decision was extremely close and the opinions given by each Justice highlighted the various flaws and benefits of the Act it was looking to uphold. Further research of Supreme Court cases in our country's history reveal the trend of augmenting and diminishing state's rights. This thesis will examine the constitutionality of the aforementioned decision, the effects it will have on each of the states within the United States, and the impact the citizens will experience.

The purposes of the following thesis is to research United States Supreme Court sex-discrimination jurisprudence and ascertain if Fourteenth Amendment legislative history was used, referred to, cited to, or quoted from, by the Supreme Court Justices in their opinions regarding sex-discrimination cases since the Amendment was ratified in 1868. Legislative history is a window into the drafting, debating, and intricate crafting of laws and amendments. When words and phrases that are used in the statutes, codes, and amendments are ambiguous or unclear, judges and justices should use the legislative history to ascertain the intent of the framers of the legislation. The methodology that was employed for this thesis was through the researching of all relevant United States Supreme Court cases as to what was written by the Justices in their opinions. Research was conducted into the relevant law review articles on the subject of legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, Supreme Court sex-discrimination jurisprudence, and the historical impact of Court decisions on the law relative to sex-discrimination. After extensive research, it was discovered that the United States Supreme Court has established over 144 years' worth of sex-discrimination jurisprudence. The law review article research revealed that the lack of legislative history research by the Court has not gone unnoticed by the legal community or the women's rights community since the Fourteenth Amendment was originally drafted. The research and analysis of the sources of sex-discrimination from cases, law review articles, and books on the subject, led to the conclusion that no Fourteenth Amendment legislative history was ever used by the Supreme Court of the United States as part of its development of sex-discrimination jurisprudence.

The Alien Tort Statute is a short, thirty-two word section of the United States Code enacted in 1789 as part of the Judiciary Act. The Alien Tort Statute, or ATS, has an uncertain and controversial beginning and remains controversial in current jurisprudence. The ATS reads as follows: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." It is my intent for this thesis to be an academic discussion of the mysterious history, intent, and court cases that have evolved the ATS; and the way in which the evolution took place. Having lain dormant for almost two decades, it is important to understand how the ATS was finally utilized and how this affected the statutes ability to become a tool for human rights persecution abroad; until the decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. Examining the language of two opinions by the District Court of the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court in Kiobel we will be able to understand, but reject, the arguments of both these courts.

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.