Search results

You are being watched -- A history of government surveillance -- Getting through the courthouse door -- The doctrine of Article III standing -- Before the Supreme Court -- Government surveillance and the law -- The legacy of Laird v. Tatum -- Technology, national security, and surveillance -- The future of citizen challenges to government surveillance

International law in general — Relation to municipal law — Treaties — Status — Treaties and the Constitution — Duty of Executive to observe Constitution in performance and conclusion of treaties — The law of the United StatesThe individual in international law — Extradition — Conditions of extradition — Surrender of United States citizen required by treaty for purpose of foreign criminal proceedings — Whether impaired by absence in foreign judicial system of safeguards in all respects equivalent to those constitutionally enjoyed on American trials — The law of the United StatesTreaties — Conclusion and operation of treaties — Operation and enforcement — The supremacy of the Constitution over treaties and executive augmentations — Constitutional requirements must be observed in the performance as well as in the conclusion of international compacts — The law of the United StatesJurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Territorial limits of jurisdiction — United States servicemen convicted by West German court for offences in West Germany against a West German national — Servicemen returning to United States — Whether obligation on the United States to return the servicemen to West Germany for service of their sentences — Whether a United States court had jurisdiction to enjoin surrender — NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951 — The law of the United States

States as international persons — In general — Conduct of foreign relations — Executive power to conduct foreign relations — Vietnam conflict — Whether lawful — Whether war crimes being committed — the law of the United StatesWar and Neutrality — War in general — Enforcement of the laws of war — Punishment of war crimes — Legality of United States' action in Vietnam — Whether United States' forces in Vietnam committing war crimes — The law of the United States

21States as international persons — In general — Conduct of foreign relations — Executive power to conduct foreign relations — Executive power to engage in hostilities — Whether authorization of Congress required — Vietnam conflict — Whether lawful — The law of the United States

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Conduct of foreign relations — Power to declare war — United States Constitution granting Congress the power to declare war — Participation of United States forces in Vietnam conflict and other conflicts in South-east Asia — Whether President entitled to order participation without prior congressional declaration of war — Whether justiciable question — Political question doctrineWar and armed conflict — War — Definition — Participation by United States forces in Vietnam and other South-east Asian military conflicts — Whether participation constituting a war — The law of the United States

Despite the Federal Tort Claims Act's explicit purpose to make state law determinative of recovery for governmental wrongs, the United States Supreme Court in Laird v. Nelms held that liability under the Act may not be predicated on a state statute imposing absolute or strict liability. Professor Peck challenges the Court's rationale in reaching this decision, concluding that Laird v. Nelms makes legislative revision of the Federal Tort Claims Act imperative. To guarantee that the Act will not insulate the government from strict liability for its ultrahazardous activities, Professor Peck proposes several basic changes to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the most vital of which are amendments to the Act's jurisdictional grant and discretionary function provisions.

Campus speech codes began to spring up on university campuses during the 1980s and continue to operate today. The codes regulate various forms of arguably offensive speech, including speech regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, ideology, views, and political affiliation. Numerous litigants have challenged the chilling effect these policies have on student and faculty speech, but in cases where the challenged code has not yet been enforced, some courts find that the plaintiff has not met the "injury-in-fact" requirement for Article III standing. The Supreme Court has not ruled on standing requirements in speech code challenges and lower courts are divided. This Comment analyzes this division and proposes that the injury-in-fact requirement should be satisfied by a plaintiff's statement describing the intended speech and how it is chilled by the challenged speech code.