DOCSLIB.ORG

A Constitutional Charge and a Comparative Vision to Substantially

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Constitutional Charge and a Comparative Vision to Substantially William & Mary Law Review Volume 37 (1995-1996) Issue 2 Article 4 February 1996 A Constitutional Charge and a Comparative Vision to Substantially Expand and Subject Matter Specialize the Federal Judiciary: A Preliminary Blueprint for Remodeling Our National Houses of Justice and Establishing a Separate System of Federal Criminal Courts Victor Williams Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Repository Citation Victor Williams, A Constitutional Charge and a Comparative Vision to Substantially Expand and Subject Matter Specialize the Federal Judiciary: A Preliminary Blueprint for Remodeling Our National Houses of Justice and Establishing a Separate System of Federal Criminal Courts, 37 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 535 (1996), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol37/iss2/4 Copyright c 1996 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr A CONSTITUTIONAL CHARGE AND A COMPARATIVE VISION TO SUBSTANTIALLY EXPAND AND SUBJECT MATTER SPECIALIZE THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY: A PRELIMINARY BLUEPRINT FOR REMODELING OUR NATIONAL HOUSES OF JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHING A SEPARATE SYSTEM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURTS VICTOR WILLIAMS* Where there is no judiciary department to interpret, pro- nounce, and execute the law, to decide controversies, to pun- ish offenses, and to enforce rights, the government must either perish from its own weakness, or the other depart- ments of government must usurp powers for the purpose of commanding obedience, to the utter extinction of civil and political liberty.1 I. INTRODUCTION America's national court system has reached a critical junc- ture and is under increased public scrutiny.2 For the past sever- al years, our federal judiciary has endured consistently high judicial vacancy rates, while struggling to cope with substantial increases in civil and criminal cases.' The resulting logjam of cases threatens the speed and quality of federal justice; without substantial change, the situation will worsen. Indeed, a first of its kind long-range planning effort by the U.S. Judicial Confer- * Associate Professor of Law, John Jay College of the City University of New York. B.A., Ouachita University (1980); M.A.T., National-Lois University (1982); Ed.M., Harvard University (1984); J.D., University of California-Hastings College of the Law (1990); LL.M., Columbia University School of Law (1994). 1. JOSEPH STORY, A FAMILIAR EXPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TE UNITED STATES 180 (1840). 2. See Doreen Carvajal, Awaiting Judgment: A Special Report; New York's Clogged U.S. Courts Delaying Civil Verdicts for Years, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 17, 1995, at Al; Neil A. Lewis, Survey to Press U.S. Judges on Caseload and Expenses, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 17, 1995, at 35. 3. See Janet Seiberg, Court Vacancies Result in Longer Case Dispositions, CONN. L. TRIB., May 9, 1994, at 8. 535 536 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 37:535 ence projects the judiciary's future as grave:4 "the picture in 2020 can only be described as nightmarish."5 The litigant casu- alties of this crisis are escalating, and the integrity of the judi- cial system is threatened. For several years, the federal courts have suffered from high judicial vacancy rates. Scores of our nation's 840 judgeships-as many as one out of seven-have remained empty because of appointment malfeasance by the political branches.6 Indeed, a single judicial vacancy presently takes an average of 804 days to fill. As a direct consequence of these vacancies and appointment delays, the U.S. Courts' Administrative Office has declared "judi- cial emergencies" in all but one of the federal judicial circuits. In a recent state of the judiciary report, Chief Justice Rehnquist cautioned: "There is perhaps no issue more important to the judiciary right now than this serious judicial vacancy problem."' President George Bush handed over more than 100 empty judgeships to incoming President Bill Clinton. Notwithstanding promises of prompt appointments, dozens of judicial vacancies have remained throughout the Clinton Administration's tenure.' More than one-third of the more than sixty vacancies that exist- ed in mid-1995 existed for longer than eighteen months.9 High judicial vacancy rates greatly weaken a system that is already stressed from the effects of a recent litigation explosion. Over the last thirty years, combined civil and criminal case filings have increased almost 1000% in the United States courts of appeals and more than 250% in the district courts.'0 In the 4. Coping With the Great Flood, LA. TIMES, Dec. 29, 1994, at B6. 5. COMMITTEE ON LONG RANGE PLANNING, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE U.S., PROPOSED LONG RANGE PLAN FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS 18 (Mar. 1995) [hereinafter PROPOSED LONG RANGE PLAN]; see Randall Samborn, Judges Foresee Federal Courts Caseload Crush, NAT'L L.J., Jan. 9, 1995, at 1. 6. See, e.g., Mark Pazniokas, Judgeship Vacancies Add to Case Backlog, HARTFORD COURANT, Mar. 16, 1995, at Al. 7. WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, 1993 YEAR-END REPORT ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY [hereinafter 1993 YEAR-END REPORT]; see William H. Rehnquist, Seen in a Glass Darkly: The Future of the Federal Courts, Address Before the University of Wiscon- sin Law School (Sept. 15, 1992), in 1993 WIs. L. REV. 1. 8. See Robert Marquand, Clinton Races To Put His Stamp on Judiciary, CHRIS- TIAN SCI. MONITOR, Mar. 7, 1995, at 1. 9. See Stephen S. Dunham, Vacant Federal Judgeships Hamstring Our Legal System, DENV. POST, July 22, 1995, at B7. 10. See FEDERAL COURTS STUDY COMMITrEE, WORKING PAPERS AND SUBCOMMIT- 1996] FEDERAL CR1MINAL COURTS 537 last fifteen years alone, the number of appeals filed per judge with the United States courts of appeals has doubled in number." As the national effort to combat violent crime and drugs in- creases, the number of criminal cases correspondingly esca- lates.' In each of statistical years 1992 and 1993, federal pros- ecutors filed almost 50,000 criminal cases in district courts-an increase of sixty-seven percent since 1980.'" Appeals of those prosecutions added substantially to appellate courts already burdened by, among other things, cases raising new sentencing issues under the novel Sentencing Reform Act of 1987."4 In- deed, between 1988 and 1993, the total number of criminal ap- peals, from convictions and sentences, increased 400%."5 The growth in federal litigation is certain to continue. In re- cent years, Congress has expanded, rather than restricted, the scope of federal laws, most notably in the area of civil rights and employment discrimination. That trend is likely to persist. Con- gress also has responded to the startling rise of violent crime across the nation by enacting tough new criminal laws. At a time when public concern about violent crime is at an all-time high, 6 and public confidence in the criminal justice process is TEE REPORTS 26-30 (1990); 1993 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINIS- TRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS [hereinafter 1993 ANNUAL REPORT]; 1992 ANNU- AL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS [hereinafter 1992 ANNUAL REPORT]; 1991 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS [hereinafter 1991 ANNUAL REPORT]. 11. See FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, STRUCTURAL AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS: REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES 18 (1993) [hereinafter STRUCTUR- AL AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES]. 12. See William W. Scharzer & Russell R. Wheeler, On the Federalization of the Administration of Civil and Criminal Justice, 23 STETSON L. REV. 651, 653-54 (1994). 13. 1993 ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 10; 1992 ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 10. 14. Pub. L. No. 100-182, 101 Stat. 1266 (1987). 15. 1993 ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 10; 1988 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DIREC- TOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS. 16. See, e.g., Bob Barr, A 'More Aggressive' Crime Bill This Time, ROLL CALL, May 22, 1995, available in LEXIS, News Library, Rollcl File; Frank James & Timo- thy J. McNulty, America, the Insecure, CmH. TRIB., May 28, 1995, at Cl; Michael Janofsky, Thousands Seek Permits To Carry Concealed Arms, N.Y. TIMES, July 6, 1995, at A14; Morton Kondracke, Crime Wave, Coming Soon, Demands Action, 538 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 37:535 at an all-time low, 7 an event such as the bombing of the feder- al building in Oklahoma City is a shocking reminder of the im- portance of maintaining an efficient and fair federal criminal justice system."8 Our overworked, understaffed federal courts are certain to face an overwhelming number of additional crimi- nal prosecutions, resulting from enforcement of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Prevention Act,'9 the pending Comprehen- sive Antiterrorism Act,2" and subsequent national anticrime and reform legislation promised by the Republican Congress's "Contract With America. ' 21 Case overload at both the trial and appellate levels has led inexorably to a state of gridlock.22 Federal civil litigants now COMM. APPEAL, May 14, 1995, at B4; Miriam Pepper, Violence Encroaches on the Job, KAN. CITY STAR, Apr. 20, 1995, at Bi. For a recent study of the complex dy- namics involved in the fear of crime, see KATHLYN T. GAUBATZ, CRIME IN THE PUB- LIC MIND (1995). 17. See, e.g., John Bare, Williamson: The Best Defense, CHAPEL HILL HERALD, Apr. 24, 1995, at 4; Charles M. Calderon, Jury System Needs Reform, USA TODAY, June 12, 1995, at AIO; Rhonda Cook & Bill Rankin, The Death GAME, ATLANTA J. & CONST., July 23, 1995, at Ni; Bill Hutchinson, Poll Shows Lady Justice Is Also on Trial, BOSTON HERALD, Jan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richard V. Allen Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt696nf2n3 No online items Register of the Richard V. Allen papers Finding aid prepared by Hoover Institution Library and Archives Staff Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 2009, 2016 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Register of the Richard V. Allen 2007C17 1 papers Title: Richard V. Allen papers Date (inclusive): 1948-1999 Collection Number: 2007C17 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 123 manuscript boxes, 9 oversize boxes(59.1 Linear Feet) Abstract: Contains correspondence, speeches, interviews, legal files, subject files, photographs, audio and video recordings, clippings, and notes relating to Allen's work in American politics and government. As a specialist in security and foreign policy, Allen worked on the Nixon and Reagan campaigns and held posts on the National Security Council under each of them. Topics of note include: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon, foreign policy, national security, political campaigns, Iran hostage crisis, Republican National Committee, libel and media abuses, Korea, and Taiwan. Creator: Allen, Richard V. Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access Boxes 3, 13-18, 36-42, 51-53, 60-61, 77, 85-88, and an audiocassette in Box 105 closed during the lifetime of Richard V. Allen. The remainder of the collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use. Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Acquisition Information Acquired by the Hoover Institution Library & Archives.
    [Show full text]
  • INFORMATION to USERS the Most Advanced Technology Has Been Used to Photo­ Graph and Reproduce This Manuscript from the Microfilm Master
    INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 Nortfi Z eeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9001986 The mission of women’s colleges in an era of cultural revolution, 1890-1930 Leone, Janice Marie, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Wrong with the Study of China/Countries
    Asian Studies II (XVIII), 1 (2014), pp. 151–185 What’s Wrong with the Study of China/Countries Hans KUIJPER* Abstract In this paper 1 the thesis is submitted that there is something fundamentally amiss in Western Sinology (Zhōngguóxué, as distinct from Hànxué, which is a kind of old- fashioned philology): ‘China experts’ either pretend to be knowledgeable about everything related to China, in which case they cannot be taken seriously, or–– eventually––admit not to be scientific all-rounders with respect to the country, in which case they cannot be called ‘China experts’. The author expects no tenured professor of Chinese Studies/History to share this view. Having exposed the weakness, indeed the scandal of old-style Sinology, he also points out the way junior Sinologists should go. The fork in that road is two-pronged: translating or collaborating. Keywords: Sinology, area/country studies, complexity, scientific collaboration, e-research Izvleček V tem članku avtor predstavi tezo, da je nekaj bistveno narobe v zahodni sinologiji (Zhōngguóxué, za razliko od Hànxué, ki je nekakšna staromodna filologija): »Kitajski strokovnjaki« se bodisi pretvarjajo, da so dobro obveščeni o vsem v zvezi s Kitajsko, in v tem primeru jih ni mogoče jemati resno, ali pa na koncu priznajo, da niso vsestransko znanstveni o državi, in jih v tem primeru ne moremo imenovati »Kitajske strokovnjake«. Avtor pričakuje, da nihče od univerzitetnih profesorjev kitajskih študij ali kitajske zgodovine ne deli tega stališča z njim. Z izpostavljenostjo šibkosti, kar je škandal za sinologijo starega sloga, opozarja tudi na pot, po kateri naj bi šli mladi sinologi. Na tej poti sta dve smeri, in sicer prevajanje ali sodelovanje.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    NO. 19-__ In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Petitioner, v. MICHEAL BACA, POLLY BACA, AND ROBERT NEMANICH, Respondents. ________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________________ PHILIP J. WEISER GRANT T. SULLIVAN Attorney General Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. OLSON LEEANN MORRILL Solicitor General First Assistant Attorney Counsel of Record General Office of the Colorado Attorney General 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 [email protected] (720) 508-6000 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED Like most States, Colorado requires its presidential electors to follow the will of its voters when casting their Electoral College ballots for President. In the 2016 Electoral College, one of Colorado’s electors violated Colorado law by attempting to cast his presidential ballot for a candidate other than the one he pledged to vote for. Colorado removed him as an elector, declined to accept his ballot, and replaced him with an alternate elector who properly cast her ballot for the winner of the State’s popular vote, consistent with Colorado law. The removed elector later sued Colorado for nominal damages. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing State from casting an Electoral College ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing State because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion. 2. Does Article II or the Twelfth Amendment forbid a State from requiring its presidential electors to follow the State’s popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Access to Constitutional Justice
    Strasbourg, 27 January 2011 CDL-AD(2010)039rev. Study N° 538 / 2009 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) STUDY ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th Plenary Session (Venice, 17-18 December 2010) on the basis of comments by Mr Gagik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2010)039 - 2 - Table of contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................6 GENERAL REMARKS....................................................................................................6 I. ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ...............................................................15 I.1. TYPES OF ACCESS .................................................................................................17 I.1.1. Indirect access...................................................................................................17 I.1.2. Direct access.....................................................................................................20 I.2. THE ACTS UNDER REVIEW ......................................................................................28 I.3. PROTECTED RIGHTS ..............................................................................................29 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
    TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Table of Contents SECTION ONE. (c) Where to File. GENERAL PROVISIONS (d) Order of the Court. Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Local Rules of Courts of Rule 5. Fees in Civil Cases Appeals Rule 6. Representation by Counsel 1.1. Scope. 6.1. Lead Counsel 1.2. Local Rules (a) For Appellant. (a) Promulgation. (b) For a Party Other Than Appellant. (b) Copies. (c) How to Designate. (c) Party's Noncompliance. 6.2. Appearance of Other Attorneys Rule 2. Suspension of Rules 6.3. To Whom Communications Sent Rule 3. Definitions; Uniform Terminology 6.4. Nonrepresentation Notice 3.1. Definitions (a) In General. (b) Appointed Counsel. 3.2. Uniform Terminology in Criminal Cases 6.5. Withdrawal (a) Contents of Motion. Rule 4. Time and Notice Provisions (b) Delivery to Party. (c) If Motion Granted. 4.1. Computing Time (d) Exception for Substitution of (a) In General. Counsel. (b) Clerk's Office Closed or Inaccessible. 6.6. Agreements of Parties or Counsel 4.2. No Notice of Trial Court’s Judgment Rule 7. Substituting Parties in Civil Case (a) Additional Time to File Documents. 7.1. Parties Who Are Not Public Officers (1) In general. (a) Death of a Party. (2) Exception for restricted appeal. (1) Civil Cases. (b) Procedure to Gain Additional Time. (2) Criminal Cases. (c) The Court’s Order. (b) Substitution for Other Reasons. 4.3. Periods Affected by Modified 7.2. Public Officers Judgment in Civil Case (a) Automatic Substitution of Officer. (a) During Plenary-Power Period. (b) Abatement. (b) After Plenary Power Expires.
    [Show full text]
  • White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas Hearings
    WHITE HOUSE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 6 AND 7, 1997 Serial No. 105–61 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45–405 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Jan 31 2003 08:13 May 28, 2003 Jkt 085679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HEARINGS\45405 45405 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JOHN E.
    [Show full text]
  • Print Profile
    Morton Kondracke has been a journalist for 45 years, 40 of them in Washington, and has covered nearly every phase of American politics and foreign policy. He's Morton Kondracke done so in newspapers, magazines and on radio and TV. In 2006, he won The Washington Post’s Crystal Ball Tournament of Champions Award for correctly predicting the Democratic takeover of Congress, outpacing 10 Speech Topics other previous Crystal Ball winners. He previously won that award in 1994 and was runner-up in 1996. Since 1991, Morton has been executive editor and columnist for Roll Call, Capitol Politics & Current Events Hill's independent newspaper. He writes "Pennsylvania Avenue," a weekly column Personal Growth on national politics, domestic and foreign policy, syndicated nationally through Peak Performance United Media. Motivation He has been a regular commentator for the Fox News Channel since October 1996. Media/News Journalists He also has been co-host of the weekly political show, The Beltway Boys, since July 1998 and is a nightly "all stars" panelist on Special Report with Brit Hume. Leadership Morton Kondracke is the author of Saving Milly: Love, Politics and Parkinson’s Disease (2001), a New York Times and Washington Post bestseller. Saving Milly was also the subject of a CBS Sunday Night movie (March 2005). Morton was regular panelist on The McLaughlin Group from the inception of the highly rated NBC/PBS talk show in 1982 until FoxNews began The Beltway Boys in 1998. He was executive editor (1977 to 1985) and senior editor (1986 to 1991) for The New Republic; Morton wrote its “White House Watch” column (1981 to 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Amidst the Varieties of Populism: the Case of the Recurrent Pattern of Nativism and Authoritarian Populism in the Politics of U.S
    Rhode Island College Digital Commons @ RIC Honors Projects Overview Honors Projects 2017 Amidst the Varieties of Populism: The aC se of the Recurrent Pattern of Nativism and Authoritarian Populism in the Politics of U.S. Immigration Policy Michelle C. Arias Santabay Rhode Island College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ric.edu/honors_projects Part of the American Politics Commons Recommended Citation Arias Santabay, Michelle C., "Amidst the Varieties of Populism: The asC e of the Recurrent Pattern of Nativism and Authoritarian Populism in the Politics of U.S. Immigration Policy" (2017). Honors Projects Overview. 130. https://digitalcommons.ric.edu/honors_projects/130 This Honors is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Projects at Digital Commons @ RIC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Projects Overview by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ RIC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMIDST THE VARIETIES OF POPULISM: THE CASE OF THE RECURRENT PATTERN OF NATIVISM AND AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM IN THE POLITICS OF U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY By Michelle C. Arias Santabay An Honors Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Honors In The Department of Political Science Faculty of Arts and Sciences Rhode Island College 2017 AMIDST THE VARIETIES OF POPULISM: THE CASE OF THE RECURRENT PATTERN OF NATIVISM AND AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM IN THE POLITICS OF U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY An Undergraduate Honors Project Presented
    [Show full text]
  • RLB Letterhead
    6-25-14 White Paper in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request re the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents. This is a White Paper (WP) in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J), plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request. The plaintiff sought the release of the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents by application of President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information, 75 F.R. 707 (January 5, 2010), § 3.5 Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR). On June 2, 2014, President Reagan Library Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Shelly Williams rendered a Case #M-425 denial decision with an attached Worksheet: This is in further response to your request for your Mandatory Review request for release of information under the provisions of Section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526, to Reagan Presidential records pertaining to Ross Perot doc re report see email. These records were processed in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207. Id. Emphasis added. The Worksheet attachment to the decision lists three sets of Keisler, Peter: Files with Doc ## 27191, 27192, and 27193 notations.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CARA LESLIE ALEXANDER, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 96-2123 ) 97-1288 ) (RCL) FEDERAL BUREAU OF ) INVESTIGATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion [827] to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to the Executive Office of the President Pursuant to Court Order of April 13, 1998. Upon consideration of this motion, and the opposition and reply thereto, the court will GRANT the plaintiffs’ motion. I. Background The underlying allegations in this case arise from what has become popularly known as “Filegate.” Plaintiffs allege that their privacy interests were violated when the FBI improperly handed over to the White House hundreds of FBI files of former political appointees and government employees from the Reagan and Bush Administrations. This particular dispute revolves around interrogatories pertaining to Mike McCurry, Ann Lewis, Rahm Emanuel, Sidney Blumenthal and Bruce Lindsey. Plaintiffs served these interrogatories pertaining to these five current or former officials on May 13, 1999. The EOP responded on July 16, 1999. Plaintiffs now seek to compel further answers to the following lines of questioning: 1. Any and all knowledge these officials have, including any meetings held or other communications made, about the obtaining of the FBI files of former White House Travel Office employees Billy Ray Dale, John Dreylinger, Barney Brasseux, Ralph Maughan, Robert Van Eimerren, and John McSweeney (Interrogatories 11, 35, 40 and 47). 2. Any and all knowledge these officials have, including any meetings held or other communications made, about the release or use of any documents between Kathleen Willey and President Clinton or his aides, or documents relating to telephone calls or visits 2 between Willey and the President or his aides (Interrogatories 15, 37, and 42).
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Judges: the Limits of Attitudinal Theory and Possible Paradox of Managerial Judging
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 61 Issue 1 Issue 1 - January 2008 Article 1 1-2008 Chief Judges: The Limits of Attitudinal Theory and Possible Paradox of Managerial Judging Tracey E. George Albert H. Yoon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Tracey E. George and Albert H. Yoon, Chief Judges: The Limits of Attitudinal Theory and Possible Paradox of Managerial Judging, 61 Vanderbilt Law Review 1 (2008) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol61/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 JANUARY 2008 NUMBER 1 Chief Judges: The Limits of Attitudinal Theory and Possible Paradox of Managerial Judging Tracey E. George* & Albert H. Yoon** I. INCENTIVES ON THE U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS .................... 9 A. The Attitudinal Model ............................................ 10 1. The Role of Policy Preferences in Votes on the Merits ...................... 11 2. The Role of Policy Preferences in Non-Merits Decisions .................................. 16 B. The Managerial Judging Model ............................. 19 II. LEADERSHIP ON THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS ................ 20 A. The Creation and Selection of Chief Judges ............. 23 B. The Real and PotentialPower of Chief Judges ......... 28 1. The Chief Judge on a Panel ........................ 28 2. Formal Authority ........................................ 29 3. Informal Powers ......................................... 33 Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University. Professor of Law, Northwestern University. We presented this paper at the 2006 Law & Society Association Annual Meeting, the Second Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, and at a Marquette University faculty workshop.
    [Show full text]