Thesis advisor: Marc Landy / This dissertation addresses the question of how the issue of gun rights is debated and resolved in American politics. While the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) has often been described as a distinct political win for gun rights advocates, it left open crucial political and regulatory questions that remain unsettled, including the constitutional permissibility of gun control measures and the proper balance between state and federal authority in establishing those parameters. This dissertation provides an account of the Second Amendment’s political development and its interpretation as a civic, state, collective, and individual right, and how shifts in interpreting the right to keep and bear arms have changed the way competing claims of gun rights and gun control are reconciled through the political process. Doing so aligns the Second Amendment with other major changes in American politics – outside of the courts – including the growing role of the federal government, the increase in polarization and the importance of cultural issues to partisan politics, and the rise of the gun rights movement as a pivotal political force. Using the lens of American political development, this dissertation is structured to identify critical junctures over time when changing interpretations of the Second Amendment transformed the politics of gun control, which include policy changes, partisan realignment, and broader patterns of federalism. Detailed historical and legal research of primary sources was conducted, including analysis of newspapers, journals, correspondence, as well as early state constitutions, records from the Constitutional Convention, briefs from state legislatures regarding gun regulation, and relevant court cases. Based on this research, the evidence is sufficiently compelling to support the collectivist reading of the Second Amendment rather than the individual rights interpretation. In other words, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the states from federal encroachment by guaranteeing their right to arm their militias – not to grant an individual right – a position that was subsequently maintained by the courts until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) overturned decades of precedent, further complicating the already contentious issue of gun rights in American politics. Chapter One focuses on the historical and intellectual origins of the right to bear arms that influenced early state constitutions and gun regulations. Chapters Two through Four discuss the nature of arms-bearing during the Revolutionary era; the debates surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Second Amendment; and the crucial role of the state militia system to early notions of republican government. Subsequent chapters provide an account of the changing nature of the state militia system, ultimately resulting in the formation of the National Guard; early legal interpretations of the right to bear arms, including whether the Second Amendment applied to the states; and a comprehensive account of federal gun legislation. From there, Chapter Seven discusses the development of collective rights theory and the Supreme Court’s traditional position on the Second Amendment. Chapters Eight and Nine turn to the rise of the gun rights movement; the establishment of the National Rifle Organization as an influential political actor and how the Second Amendment was politicized to advance its cause; changes to federal gun legislation; and the development of individual rights theory and its influence on the partisan debate about gun control, including a literature review to account for the “New Standard Model” of Second Amendment scholarship. Chapter Ten analyzes the milestone decisions District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and also provides a detailed account of the process of incorporating the Second Amendment against the states, arguing that even though the Supreme Court established the individual right to keep and bear arms, its traditional interpretation as a states’ right must be maintained in the interest of federalism. The Conclusion further advances this assertation, contending that the intense debate about gun rights in American politics could be tempered by allowing the states greater latitude to regulate both gun control and gun rights. Under a federalized system of well-regulated liberty that emphasizes state autonomy, the states would be free to either limit or expand the right to keep and bear arms based on the demands of their constituents, which balances the politics of gun control with the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2023. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science.

This dissertation will identify and describe the state of the law regarding student speech and press freedom. The following questions will be explored: What rights do young people have? What standards have state and federal courts established? To what extent and how clearly have state statutes defined student expressive rights? What do state laws say about this topic? What issues have yet to be addressed, either because a case has not raised certain issues or because the issue does not lend itself to compromise or a clear solution? How does the capacity of social media for widespread and rapid dissemination affect the balancing of First Amendment rights with other interests? Among other topics, the dissertation will discuss the development of First Amendment law, the strengthening of student expression law in the 1960s, the curtailment of student expression rights at the K-12 level in the 1980s, and state legislation that protects student expression at the K-12 and university levels. The conclusion will contain strategies for the enhancement of students’ First Amendment rights.

In January, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear three cases involving student online speech, or cyberspeech. This indicates that the Court is content with lower courts applying First Amendment jurisprudence developed over 40 years ago to a rapidly advancing digital environment where students carry the equivalent of personal computers in their pockets, have an ever-growing telepresence, and rely on cyberspeech as their primary means of communicating with the world around them. Lower courts also are beginning to grapple with challenges to students Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as it relates to the digital environment described above. Recently, lower courts in Mississippi, Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky have applied standards set forth decades ago to decide cases involving searches of students mobile devices and Web 2.0 applications. Given the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court, this study aims to: (1) identify and analyze trends in the current application of legal standards related to student cyberspeech and search and seizure in the digital age; (2) synthesize these findings into a set of essential guidelines for school officials to use as they navigate a legal landscape that has yet to be well defined; and (3) make recommendations to further develop the body of law. Findings indicate that school officials have the legal authority to restrict off-campus student cyberspeech when certain conditions are met, and Tinker governs cases in this area. Seriously threatening, slanderous, or obscene cyberspeech is not constitutionally protected and can be restricted prior to an actual disruption. Off-campus student cyberspeech that reaches the school can legally be restricted so long as evidence shows that it caused a material and substantial disruption. In addition, students possess reasonable expectations of privacy in their personal mobile devices and password-protected private Web 2.0 communications. T.L.O governs searches of students personal mobile devices and Vernonia appears to govern cases involving searches of students Web 2.0 applications. Substantive suspicion at the outset, carefully tailored searches, and a clear governmental interest will keep school officials from violating students Fourth Amendment protections. / Ed. D.

I have examined the relationship between the U.S. Congress and professional sports—specifically, Major League Baseball. The focus of this examination was on the abuse of steroids in professional sports, and how certain constitutional limitations on Congress inhibited direct mandates on drug testing for individual players due to the Fourth Amendment. I have concluded that due to major league sports being for-profit ventures, economic motivations in the form of tax incentives were the most effective way for Congress to implement a tougher drug testing policy without violating the Fourth Amendment.

The reuse of litter in broiler production can lead to litter pathogen buildup and high levels of ammonia in broiler housing, thus resulting in poor broiler performance. This study evaluated the effects of two microbial litter amendments on litter characteristics, ammonia production and broiler performance. Experiment one, consisting of three trials, utilized eight pens approximately 3 x 3.2 m (10 x 10.5 ft) to rear broilers to 49 d of age. Experiment two, consisting of one trial, utilized twelve 1.8 x 3.7 m (6 x 12 ft) pens to rear broilers to 42 d of age. Used litter was obtained from separate commercial broiler farms for each experiment and placed into the pens at an average depth of 11 cm (4.3 in). Feed consumption and mortality were recorded for each pen for each trial. Ammonia production was measured by placing an enclosed chamber over the litter and measuring the headspace ammonia concentration after 20 minutes for both experiments. Experiment one also utilized a two minute ammonia flux technique. Ammonia measurements were taken at the time of litter treatment, at chick placement, and once per week for the remainder of the grow-out. Litter samples were collected at the same time and location as ammonia measurements. At the end of all trials, caked litter was removed from each pen, weighed and sampled. Litter and cake samples were analyzed for total aerobic and anaerobic microbial counts in experiment 1. Experiment 2 analyzed aerobic litter samples only. Paw scores were also recorded at the end of each trial for all birds using a 3-point scale. Data was subjected to ANOVA using the GLM procedure with means deemed significantly different at P < 0.05. Statistical differences were seen sparingly in different parameters in both experiments; however these differences were random in their distribution and showed no trend. Final results indicated that the microbial litter amendments had no effect on broiler performance, litter characteristics or ammonia production.

Agricultural soils in Nova Scotia are usually limed in order to raise soil pH to ensure optimum availability of soil nutrients. Wood ash, produced by burning wood-based fuels, is promoted as a substitute for agricultural lime. This study individually assessed two wood ash sources available to Nova Scotia producers through on-farm sampling as well as greenhouse bioassay and incubation experiments. The variables measured were soil pH, plant-available and total element concentrations in soil, total element concentrations in above ground plant tissue, botanical composition and pasture condition scores (PCS). Soil pH was significantly increased after the application of wood ashes, however the effect was short-lived for one ash (NewPage). Agricultural lime was the most effective at increasing pH. Total soil concentrations of Al, Cr, K and Na remained elevated one year after ash application to NewPage sites. Brooklyn Power ash contained excessive levels of Zn, Cd, Pb and As.

Long before our nation was created, European Countries acknowledged the importance of freespeech. Despite this, Great Britain later denied this right to the New England Colonies. Over thelast two centuries many battles have been fought to make freedom of speech an inalienable right tobe shared by all. A good portion of these battles have been fought in courtrooms. Judge andSupreme Court justices have dealt with issues ranging from what is a public figure to what isindecent speech. Many of these issues are not found in the original text of the Constitution. This hasforced the judges to devise tests to determine certain standards and to make discretionary choices.Today's public officials are dealing with issues that have never been dealt with before, such asInternet speech and cyberspace libel. The decisions rendered by the courts on these new issues willset a precedent for future generations. What kind of effect of this new territory, known ascyberspace, will have on the First Amendment is yet to be seen.

The debate surrounding one’s right to know what is in one’s food has increased in popularity since 2012 when California became the first state to vote on Proposition 37 which would have mandated the labeling of genetically modified organisms. Proposition 37 was defeated due to the public relations campaign mounted by Monsanto and other corporate sponsors of genetically engineered seeds. Utilizing both a visual and written content analysis, this study identified the ethically problematic public relations strategies within the campaign to defeat Proposition 37, while also examining the content to determine whether the strategic communication must be classified as commercial or political speech pursuant to the First Amendment. Even though the campaign was found to be ethically problematic when applying the five elements of the TARES Test, it was beneficial to expand those components for future evaluations regarding all issues when a corporate speaker is involved in advocacy.

For the past several years the issue of homosexual marriage has been at the forefront of an often intense debate in American political culture. Those who oppose the policy have, by and large, been in the majority. But in America, majority decisions are not automatically legal; such status is obtained only when policies are not in conflict with the Constitution. With that in mind, this paper aims to show how not allowing homosexual marriage can amount to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. To accomplish this I will first examine the main arguments presented against the policy by the defenders of “traditional” marriage and show how they fail. With the main arguments undercut, opponents of gay marriage must have either no real basis for their position, or make their arguments from within specific comprehensive (generally religious) doctrines- a phenomenon widespread enough to possibly constitute a violation of the first amendment.

Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston University