Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

Don't know if this typically qualifies as "politics", but something tells me the Student Life forum isn't the help I need here.

What is a law review note?

[ QUOTE ]
A Note is a student-authored piece of academic writing which discusses and analyzes an original legal issue or problem in some depth. Beyond this very general description, Notes are quite diverse, both in terms of topic and style. Some are doctrinally focused analyses of particular legal questions. Others present normative arguments on how courts or legislatures should analyze a particular problem that they have not yet addressed adequately. Still others are historical or theoretical. What all good Notes have in common is that they are well-written, interesting, and original treatments of legal problems. Most Notes begin their lives as term papers, either for traditional courses and seminars or for directed research.

[/ QUOTE ]


Now obviously, coming to the Politics forum, I expect a certain amount of AC anti-government sentiment, etc., etc. I'm all about finding some area where a certain law is being applied differently in different courts, against the constitution, etc. but I probably am not going to write about how we should abolish the government.

What I am really looking for is some unsettled area of law, some conflict between circuit courts, basically something that is fresh and topical. An area where there is a question, and as of yet not many answers. I'm going to be putting tons of hours into this, so I don't want to write on some tiny rule in Maritime law that is only unsettled because nobody cares. I'm looking for something that might even sound interesting to people other than law school professors.

I have absolutely no ideas and would appreciate some help. If I use your idea, I can even thank you in a footnote!

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

What about the whole IRS issue?

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about the whole IRS issue?

[/ QUOTE ]


Could you expand on this?





Also, it must be a topic, or at least a position, that hasn't been argued before.

We have to do an intense "preemption check."

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

Personally, I'm somewhat curious (from a historical perspective) about how often a nation's constitution becomes effectively irrelevant to the functioning of its government, and how long it typically takes for this to happen. The following quote sums the situation up pretty well for the US, but I'm curious to know if this is a completely general phenomenon, or on what factors this sort of thing depends:

"It took about 150 years, starting with a Bill of Rights that reserved to the states and the people all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government, to produce a Supreme Court willing to rule that growing corn to feed to your own hogs is interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by Congress." – David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

Eminent domain? Might not fit your criteria but has Bush's 2006 executive order been tested?

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about the whole IRS issue?

[/ QUOTE ]


Could you expand on this?





Also, it must be a topic, or at least a position, that hasn't been argued before.

We have to do an intense "preemption check."

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the political bent of this forum, the "issue" is probably "that it exists".

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

2/325,

trouble is, if a topic is too "hot" then tons of people are writing on it. eminent domain and takings is one of those areas. its one im looking at, but its tough to find a niche that hasn't already been examined, especially since i'm not a legal scholar (yet)

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about the whole IRS issue?

[/ QUOTE ]


Could you expand on this?





Also, it must be a topic, or at least a position, that hasn't been argued before.

We have to do an intense "preemption check."

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UT2Ms5E2k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9PSYkWIuIs

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

do it on kelo and how the homeowners could have won the case if they would have argued that they were unfairly compensated, rather than that the gov couldn't take their property.

I mean, it's easy for gov to take property at 20 cents on the dollar, it's much harder for them to take it when they have to pay 200 cents on the dollar (future use can increase property values).

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

I almost want to say to write about the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court reversed the earlier decision throwing it out, but on the grounds of a lack of standing so the question remains open. How much has been written about that? A couple other ideas:

A decision concerning the issues of federalism regarding environmental laws. The landmark case in this area is Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County V. Army Corps of Engineers but this issue seems to still come up.

Enemy Comabtants, Guantanamo detainees, etc. I imagine a lot has been written about this, but it is certainly unsettled.

I'll think about this.

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

Ever read theagitator.com? Radley Balko has written extensively on the increase in paramilitary raids. Probably been a fair amount written about this in wake of the Hudson case, but I imagine some good issues still exist.

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

Another idea I had was asbestos litigation. Currently, dozens of companies are being forced into bankruptcy, many of them only tangentially related to asbestos. I'm not sure what angle you might take, but but maybe something like a public policy case for dismissing future suits.

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

[ QUOTE ]
do it on kelo and how the homeowners could have won the case if they would have argued that they were unfairly compensated, rather than that the gov couldn't take their property.

I mean, it's easy for gov to take property at 20 cents on the dollar, it's much harder for them to take it when they have to pay 200 cents on the dollar (future use can increase property values).

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are speaking rhetorically here and not the specifics of Kelo. It is highly doubtful that they wouldnt have raised just compensation as an issue if the offers were signficantly undervalued. Given the status of New London at the time the property values were so depressed that market value (or market value plus a premium) would probably have been offered just to avoid the litigation costs.

If your parenthetical is meant to imply that a holdout owner should be compensated for increases in market value due solely to economic gains from the project the land is being seized for, you are incorrect both legally (SCOTUS) and ethically (imho).

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you are speaking rhetorically here and not the specifics of Kelo.

[/ QUOTE ]

my understanding is that in the kelo case it was argued that the gov overstepped their authority by using eminent domain for a private development rather than a public works like a road or bridge, and that just compensation was never an issue.

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

Yes, but you said that the plaintiffs "could" have prevailed if unjust compensation was claimed. I was asking whether you have facts that the compensation offered was unjust, or it was just a rhetorical "could have". I was also pointing out that in the absence of those facts, I think it highly unlikely that the compensation offered was unjust or it would have been raised as an issue and given the economic distress in New London.

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

I think Copernicus is right. I think its settled that just compensation = fair market value of the property in the absence of the taking. Actually, landowners can usually negotiate a pretty good premium on their property if they settle without taking it to court.

Noah, if you don't get what you need here, you might try your luck in The Lounge.

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

It may be too hot a topic, but any of the issues surrounding Jack McClellan would be pretty interesting:

Can he constituionally be banned from being within 30 feet of children?

Can he be restricted from taking pictures of children and posting them on a website without identification or location? With location only?

If his site isn't illegal does he have a cause of action against companies that refuse to host his site if they host other controversial sites?

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was asking whether you have facts that the compensation offered was unjust,

[/ QUOTE ]

i think they were forced to take below market value, but I'm not gonna look it up, but pretty sure it was shady.

Re: Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was asking whether you have facts that the compensation offered was unjust,

[/ QUOTE ]

i think they were forced to take below market value, but I'm not gonna look it up, but pretty sure it was shady.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, so basically, you dont know wtf you're talking about. You should have left it as a rhetorical.