Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)

[XXXNoahXXX]

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!

[Nielsio]

What about the whole IRS issue?

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ 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."

[NickMPK]

[ 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".

[XXXNoahXXX]

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)

[Nielsio]

[ 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

[Metric]

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

[2/325Falcon]

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

[PLOlover]

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).

[Copernicus]

[ 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).