Alan Silber, a graduate of Duke University and Columbia Law School, has been a leader in the marijuana legalization movement for many years. He has served on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, chaired that group’s Drug Law Reform Committee, and lectured around the country on issues involving drug law reform. Silber served on the ABA Drug Law reform committee and the board of advisors of the Drug Policy Foundation.
Roger Newman is the author of "Hugo Black: A Biography," a work that won the Scribes Book Award and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in biography. He also co-authored "Banned Films: Movies, Censors and the First Amendment," and was editor-in-chief of "The Constitution and Its Amendments.” Newman taught for seven years as an adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is currently working on a book on the Supreme Court against the backdrop of the conservative movement over the past forty years.
Newman’s writings have appeared in The Washington Post, The Nation and The American Lawyer as well as many other academic and legal publications and newspapers. He has lectured extensively with over 200 appearances and university’s throughout the county, and has appeared on NPR, PBS, C-Span and Entertainment Tonight.
“One Nation Under Surveillance” Synopsis
If the first casualty of war is truth, civil liberties are second. Panic leads the way, with such examples as the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II and McCarthyism purges during the Cold War. The reaction to 9-11 has threatened civil liberties in a potentially much more dangerous way. The government is keeping records of everything we do digitally, even on admittedly rare occasion listening to our phone calls. A National Surveillance State has been created. Even just walking on the street is often recorded. The dangers are obvious. Americans are losing their privacy as the government to an unprecedented extent is monitoring communications and recording in public, seemingly in perpetuity. The ramifications just cannot be understated and simply put, it is the hottest issue in the country.
Kenneth W. Simons is Professor of Law and the Honorable Frank R. Kenison Distinguished Scholar in Law at Boston University School of Law, where he has taught Criminal Law, Torts, Constitutional Law, and seminars on the Law and Ethics of War, the Philosophy of Punishment, and the Idea of Equality. He is currently co-Reporter of the Restatement Third of Torts: Intentional Torts to Persons. He is a leading scholar on the topic of assumption of risk in tort law, and has published an influential series of articles on the nature and role of mental states in criminal law, tort, and constitutional law. He also has written widely on bias crimes, contributory negligence, corrective justice, the logic of egalitarian norms, mistake and impossibility in criminal law, negligence as a moral and legal concept, and strict liability.
Prof. Simons has been a visiting professor at Michigan Law School and a clerk for Judge James L. Oakes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In reference to the LexisNexis Academic (LNA) database, attendees will be able to:
- describe LNA law-related content
- describe how to construct a Boolean or Connector search
- describe how to construct a segment search
- explain how to retrieve a case by citation
- explain how to search for cases, statutory code sections, regulations, and law review articles
- explain how to Shepardize a case (ie, find materials that cite a case)
Hands-on training, accompanied by lecture and PowerPoint presentation.
Detailed outline and PowerPoint slides to be provided to attendees.
Laura E. Ray, MA, MLS, is the Instructional Services Librarian at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University. She coordinates Law Library instructional programs, advises on collection issues for medical and health care materials, as well as provides classroom research instruction, reference service, and assistance with faculty instructional support. Laura has presented and moderated numerous workshops and lectures at national and regional library conferences since 1982, addressing a myriad of topics on legal research, legislative advocacy, educational design and learning styles, and the audiovisual enhancement of learning.
Stephen I. Vladeck is a Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law. His teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, national security law, and international criminal law. A nationally recognized expert on the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism, he was part of the legal team that successfully challenged the Bush Administration's use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), and has co-authored party and amicus briefs in a host of other major lawsuits, many of which have challenged the U.S. government’s surveillance and detention of terrorism suspects. Vladeck, who is a co-editor of Aspen Publishers’ leading national security and counterterrorism law casebooks, has authored reports on related topics for a wide range of organizations, including the First Amendment Center, the Constitution Project, and the ABA’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security.
“Military Justice and Article III”
The Supreme Court has long held that federal adjudication before judges lacking Article III’s salary and tenure protections is permissible today only in the three categories of cases in which the Court has previously allowed it — all cases before federal “territorial” courts; criminal prosecutions before military tribunals; and “public rights” adjudication before non-Article III judicial or administrative bodies. And although the Justices have repeatedly grappled with the outer bounds of this last category in recent years, they have generally accepted the first two as settled. Scholars have followed suit, with virtually all of the extensive literature in the field focusing on the specific scope of the public rights exception, or on the search for cross-cutting theories of Article III. As a result, it has been decades since any concerted effort has been undertaken to rationalize the scope of the military exception — whether to the Constitution’s text or purpose or to more prudential considerations. And although the similarly neglected territorial courts have remained largely untouched over the past quarter-century, the same period has witnessed significant expansions in the scope of both court-martial and military commission jurisdiction to encompass offenses and offenders not previously thought to be amenable to military, rather than civilian, trials. Although these expansions have been especially pronounced with regard to the scope of court-martial jurisdiction, they are also reflected in, for example, the en banc D.C. Circuit’s 2014 decision in the Al Bahlul Guantánamo military commission appeal. Given these expansions, the litigation that they have provoked, and the tensions they have placed upon the military exception, the time has long since passed for a reassessment of where and how military justice fits into our understanding of Article III.
Cleveland State Law Review Symposium - "History and the Meaning of the Constitution," co-sponsored by the Federalist Society
- Patrick Charles, "History as a Guidepost to Interpreting the Constitution"
- Sheldon Gelman, "Court-packing and the 'Switch in Time': Recent Developments"
- Scott Gerber, "Liberal Originalism: The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation"
- Lee Strang, "Originalism's Promise and Limits"
Joy Cumming is a Professor of Education in the Faculty of Education and Arts at the Australian Catholic University, leading a research program on Assessment, Evaluation and Student Learning within the Learning Sciences Institute Australia. Originally a secondary school teacher in English and Mathematics, she has been involved in educational research for nearly 40 years.
The origins of Australian and US law from the English system should indicate that the systems are similar. Both have statute and common law, both make assumptions of innocence and pursue adversarial approaches to establishing guilt or liability. In practice, especially for education law, four core differences, three from Constitutional law and one from public law, frame the impact of both education praxis and legal challenges. This presentation will provide an overview of Australian law, and differences from US law, with examples of the impact of the differences on education law challenges: Individual rights; Reserve powers; the Establishment Clause, and the Briginshaw principle for burden of proof.
Great Stories program: The Legacy of Slavery
What is the legacy of America's brutal slavery experience and it's terrible "Jim Crow" aftermath?
For information contact Prof. Arthur Landever at firstname.lastname@example.org or Louise Mooney at 216-334-6700.
There is a $30. registration fee which includes continental breakfast. Please RSVP by March 27, 2014 to Laverne Carter at 216-687-2349. There is limited enrollment.
CMLAA-CLE seminar - Trial Tactics
CMLAA-CLE seminar - The Affordable Care Act and Health Care Reform