Antisemitism -- History -- United States -- 1945-, Jews -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- United States, and American Jewish Congress
The victory over the Nazi regime in 1945 caused many Americans to turn their attention to the elimination of racism and prejudice at home. The Holocaust united the American Jewish community to fight against antisemitism with the goal of eliminating it forever. Changes in the Jewish leadership moved national Jewish organizations to join the Blacks' struggle for civil rights. Between 1945-50 the American Jewish Congress designed a legal attack on discrimination that was founded on the assumption that law and social science could be merged. The ideological basis of this campaign was put forward by two emigre scholars, Kurt Lewin and Alexander Pekelis. Two commissions were established in the framework of the AJC to this end, with different conceptions of how to merge science and law. The AJC was resolved to focus on all forms of discrimination rather than only on antisemitism. The AJC's scientific approach contributed to the dismantling of legalized segregation and reduction in antisemitism after 1950.
Texas Review of Law & Politics, 2015/10/01, Vol: 20, p79
civil procedure, computer internet law, governments, and healthcare law
I. Introduction A. Congress-Court Relations During the Rehnquist Court The Rehnquist Court (OT1986-OT2005) has been described as an ideologically divided Court with two blocs of "stalwarts" (a conservative bloc and a liberal bloc) and with Justice O'Connor as the pivotal swing vote. 1 The Rehnquist Court was also known for its (conservative) activism. 2 Professor Cass Sunstein noted that "In its first seventy-five years, the Supreme Court struck down only two acts of Congress. In the eighteen years since Ronald Reagan nominated William H. Rehnquist as Chief Justice, the Court has invalidated more than three dozen. Under Rehnquist, the Court has compiled a record of judicial activism that is, in some ways, without parallel in the nation's history." 3 Professor Mark Tushnet argued that on the Rehnquist Court: Everyone is a judicial activist. The Rehnquist Court has invalidated laws whose constitutionality was clear under long-established doctrine, using novel analyses that it has sometimes acknowledged cannot be tied closely to the Constitution's text or original understandings. In addition, the Rehnquist Court has asserted, more strongly than the Warren Court, a primary role in enforcing the legal boundaries Congress has to respect, so much so that two respected scholars have written an important article with the accurate title "Dissing Congress." 4 During the "Second Rehnquist Court," the Court pursued a federalism agenda and was active in striking down congressional statutes. 5 Professor Thomas Keck concluded, "In its view toward federal legislative power ... the later Rehnquist Court has been the ...
Texas Hispanic Journal of Law & Policy, 2015/04/01, Vol: 21, p31
constitutional law, criminal law procedure, governments, international law, international trade law, military veterans law, and pensions benefits law
Introduction After more than a century under U.S. rule, the political status of Puerto Rico remains unresolved. A constitutional law scholar has advanced the proposition that, "Puerto Rico and the United States are truly at the crossroads, in a situation of crisis, at a time when a critical decision must be made." 1 A Spanish colony for 400 years, it came under the sovereignty of the United States in 1898. By then, Puerto Rico had developed its own identity as a Spanish-speaking Latin American nation of the Caribbean. Since then, three major pieces of legislation enacted under congressional powers to "make all needful rules and regulations" regarding the territories are of special significance. 2 First, the Foraker Act of 1900 3 ordained a civil government to replace military rule, set the conditions for relations between local and federal governments, and provided for an elected, non-voting delegate, a "resident commissioner," to the U.S. Congress, which continues to exist to this day. The second organic act, the Jones Act of 1917, 4 added, among other provisions, an elected Senate, extended U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans (in spite of vigorous opposition by the sole elective body, the House of Delegates, 5 now renamed "House of Representatives"). The third important congressional enactment was Public Law 600 of 1950, authorizing a process whereby the people of Puerto Rico could draft and approve a constitution for a strictly local government. 6 Public Law 600 amended the provisions of the 1917 Jones Act establishing the ...
Florida Journal of International Law, 2013/04/01, Vol: 25, p61
constitutional law, criminal law procedure, governments, and international law
I. Introduction After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 the U.S. Congress responded by passing the shockingly evocative Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, 1 while the Westminster Parliament, though not directly affected by the incident, passed the blander, but not altogether unevocative, Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001. 2 Moreover, Westminster's response to the London bombings of July 2005 did not come until March 2006. This time the terrorist incident had occurred in their own country, yet the response in terms of short titles was even less evocative: the legislature responded by enacting the innocuously titled Terrorism Act 2006. 3 When the financial crisis was first perceived in 2008 Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 4 while Westminster enacted the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008. 5 Congress's subsequent major response to the financial crisis was the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 6 while Westminster's other major responses to such matters were the Banking Act 2009 7 and the Corporation Tax Act 2009. 8 But differences in short titling between the lawmaking bodies lie in other unexpected areas as well, such as mental health. While the subject of mental health is not usually a divisive issue by most standards, Congress apparently feels the need to employ evocative language in titles relating to such matters, while Westminster titles appear more measured. For example, Congress passed the Combating Autism Act ...
civil rights law, constitutional law, criminal law procedure, governments, international law, international trade law, and military veterans law
Despite the executive branch's leadership in the war on terror, 1 Congress has periodically passed legislation regarding military detention. 2 Congress's latest effort was the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 3 (NDAA), which it passed on December 15, 2011, and which President Barack Obama signed into law later that month. 4 In addition to affirming and potentially expanding the President's detention powers, 5 the NDAA extends for another year restrictions on the President's ability to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States and foreign countries. 6 Although President Obama signed the bill into law, he issued a signing statement criticizing the restrictions on both policy and constitutional grounds, arguing that they could in certain circumstances violate the separation of powers. 7 Although flawed as policy, the NDAA's detainee-transfer restrictions do not unconstitutionally infringe upon the President's Commander-in-Chief or foreign affairs powers. 8 Rather, the restrictions are a welcome assertion of Congress's proper role in regulating wartime detention. The NDAA's counterterrorism provisions take up fourteen of the Act's 507 sections. 9 Section 1021 explicitly recognizes the President's authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force 10 (AUMF) to detain, "pending disposition under the law of war," 11 those who were directly involved in the September 11 attacks 12 or who are "a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." 13 The section, however, expressly avoids ...
Rabbis -- Attitudes, Rabbis -- United States, Jews -- History -- United States -- 19th century, Jews -- History -- United States -- 20th century, Jews -- Political activity -- History, and Judaism and state -- Congresses