This note addresses the procedural and substantive legal issues that need to be addressed before proposals to prohibit individuals on terrorist and no-fly lists from purchasing guns could be implemented without violating constitutional rights. Currently, individuals on these lists are often unaware of their inclusion, and when they do discover it they are rarely able to discover the reason behind it, nor can they easily appeal the decision. As it stands a blanket prohibition on gun purchases by all individuals on these lists would violate both due process and 2nd Amendment rights. The note begins by giving an overview of due process and 2nd Amendment case law as applied to the no-fly list. Next the author addresses the constitutional violations that currently arise for those on the no-fly list. The note concludes by proposing that the creation of an administrative agency to adjudicate claims related to no-fly list would allow the expansion of the list from no-fly to no-buy. View More.
This article discusses the dramatic rise in occupations that require licenses over the last few decades, as well as the onerous requirements that often accompany the licenses, making it difficult for some individuals to practice their chosen trade. Obtaining and maintaining occupational licenses often requires time, training, and fees. The author argues that this required licensing affects the basic right to earn a living, and thus warrants a different level of scrutiny by the courts than what is usually applied. The article traces the increase in occupational license requirements, as well as the political and economic reasons behind the rise, and possible justifications for licensing. Next, a series of casket-selling cases that involved varying levels of judicial scrutiny and varying results are analyzed. Finally, the author recommends a return to the use of the rational basis test as it was originally intended to determine the constitutionality of occupational licensing laws. View More.
This note considers the recent decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in In re N.H. that requires the prosecution to provide full discovery to juveniles prior to a waiver hearing, ensuring that the best interests of juvenile offenders are protected. The author proposes that the mandate helps to prevent some of the racial and geographical impacts of not providing full discovery, and discusses the ethical implications of these issues. A brief overview of the juvenile court system, as well as U.S. Supreme Court and New Jersey case law is provided. Next the significance of In re N.H. decision is discussed. Finally, the author provides support for the importance of full discovery in juvenile proceedings, and suggest additional reforms that are needed to improve the juvenile justice system at both the state and federal levels. View More.
"One who commits a breach of contract must make reparation in the form of paying compensatory damages to the aggrieved party. In determining the amount to be awarded, the aim is to put the aggrieved party in as good a position as that party would have been if performance had been rendered as promised.” “ It is also an almost inflexible proposition that a party who has been wronged by a breach of contract may not sit idly by and allow damages to accumulate, but rather must make reasonable efforts to minimize those damages”. Although applications of the mitigation principle pervade the rules of contracts, it is unsettling to consider just how many issues and questions arise as to the precise efforts required by the mitigation duty. View More.