Sign In

GLR ONLINE • LATEST ISSUE

  • The Effeminate Patriot - Deconstructing “Sex” in Marine Combat Roles
    Alyssa Rodriguez
    For more than 150 years, women have had the daunting task of arguing the legitimacy of our obligation and ability to participate in the protection and defense of this country. In fact, it was only the increasing demand of manpower of World War II that compelled Congress to allow women to pursue noncombatant military roles. Still, official legislation and military policies continued to warp the perceptions of female ability and authority in the military by placing severe limitations on women’s military opportunities. Today, women can no longer be excluded from assignments to units and positions “whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.” For proponents of gender inclusion, the standards serve as a de facto barrier for women in obtaining these positions; for opponents, national security is far too valuable to compromise for the sake for social engineering. Notably, this debate also raises a critical feminist concern: in a nation where military participation is a fundamental part of citizenship, women are inevitably estopped from becoming full citizens where the extent of our military obligation and service is systematically hindered compared to the rest of our cohort.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. Online (2018)
  • Double Trouble - The Errors of the Dual Sovereignity Doctrine in Light of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle
    Anneliese Aliasso
    The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, "No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." As interpreted by the Supreme Court, this provision bars multiple prosecutions by entities with the same sovereignty, but allows multiple prosecutions when initiated by entities where “the same act may be an offense or transgression of the laws of both. This idea is known as the dual sovereignty doctrine. Inherent in this doctrine’s functioning is the recognition of the entity as a separate sovereign, which as the Supreme Court has opined, is dependent on a narrow question of “whether the prosecutorial powers of the two jurisdictions have independent origins—or said, conversely, whether those powers derive from the same ‘ultimate source.’” In later Supreme Court cases challenging multiple prosecutions on the basis of Double Jeopardy, separate sovereign status was extended to states and tribal nations using the dual sovereignty doctrine. Absent from this extension are United States territories, specifically, what is arguably the closest territory, Puerto Rico.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. Online (2018)
  • E Pluribus Unum - Should Women Be Required to Register for Selective Service?
    Brenda Baddam
    Our national motto – Out of Many, One – symbolizes unity. E Pluribus Unum captured the new republic’s spirit of tolerance, solidarity, and nationalism. This concept helps us visualize a nation where its citizens are people from many different backgrounds, races, religions, and nationalities that come together as a united nation where equal rights are accorded to all of its citizens. Thus, a person’s gender would have no bearing on his/her exercise of rights. This paper sets out to build a connection between militarization and gender and make a solid argument as to why women should be mandated to register for selective service.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. Online (2018)
  • The Recent Clashes and Collaborations between Technology Companies and the U.S. Government in Serving National Security
    Harrison Liangyu Fu
    When it comes to serving national security in the digital age, the role that technology companies are playing has become more and more critical, presenting a challenge for the U.S. Government, in finding a way of reconciling the public interest for national security, as well as technology companies’ private interest for privacy and independence. In the matter of serving national security, the U.S. Government often requires cooperation and compliance from private technology giants, who often have firsthand or exclusive knowledge or access to help produce intelligence the U.S. Government needs to defend national security. On the one hand, technology giants have the obligation and a corporate citizen’s duty to aid the U.S. Government in gathering information under the USA Freedom Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. On the other hand, however, technology companies also need to maintain corporate responsibilities owed to its users and customers, in protecting their rights to privacy, as well as freedom of speech. It is the balance of these two interests that creates a clash. This comment will mainly highlight those moments when clashes occur, and analyze those moments when collaborations take place, in the hopes of exploring remedies in law to further nurture the cooperation between technology companies and the U.S. Government in better serving national security.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. Online (2018)
  • Mind the Gap - Unemployment Discrimination
    Stephanie Minerley
    The Equal Opportunity Commission's prohibited practices explicitly state that an employer may not discriminate against unemployment status. There is an exception to this, but only if the discrimination (1) does not “significantly disadvantage people of a particular race, color, national origin, religion or sex” and (2) it helps the employer “accurately identify responsible and reliable employees.” However, first and foremost, unemployment discrimination does significantly disadvantage people of a particular sex and a particular race or color. Specifically, a gap in employment on a resume, no matter the reason, can vitiate an employee’s chance of being hired and an employer may utilize this legal loophole to hire individuals with fewer periods of unemployment, statistically: married, white men. In this vein, women, particularly mothers in the workforce, are significantly disadvantaged because they are statistically more likely to have periods of unemployment on their resume due to time taken off for childcare. Additionally, unemployment discrimination based on resume gaps also seriously disadvantages certain races and individuals of color as well because blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be arrested or convicted of crimes and are more likely to be pulled over in traffic stops and the ensuing incarceration leads to noticeable resume gaps.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. Online (2018)

View All Past Online Volumes

​​

GLR PRINT • LATEST ISSUE

  • Prosecuting the War on Terror in the Trump Administration: The Trump Doctrine - Is There Really a New Sheriff in Town?
    Jeffrey F. Addicott
    When billionaire businessman Donald J. Trump announced his intention to run for President of the United States in 2015, most commentators in the “main-stream media” dismissed his chances to secure the Republican nomination, let alone win the office of the presidency against a general match up with the sure to be4 Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, on November 7, 2017, Donald J. Trump was elected as the forty-fifth President of the United States of America. Whatever else might be said about the reasons for the Trump victory, there is no doubt that dealing with the ongoing “War on Terror” and the threat of domestic Islamic terrorism played a significant role in securing Donald J. Trump the win. Some confidently predicted that “there was a new sheriff in charge” and things would surely change in that arena. Accordingly, after one full year in office, it is time to examine the actions taken by the Trump Administration in light of its legal and policy structures for dealing with the War on Terror and the companion problem of radical Islamic terrorism—both the domestic and international threat.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 209 (2018)
  • A Blank Check: Constitutional Consequences of President Trump's Apraio Pardon
    Genevieve A. Bentz
    On August 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued the first pardon of his administration to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The pardon was in response to Arpaio’s conviction of criminal contempt by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton. Judge Bolton found Arpaio to have flagrantly disregarded the previous ruling of United States District Judge G. Murray Snow. In 2011, Judge Snow charged Arpaio with civil contempt after Arpaio violated a preliminary injunction ordering him to stop racially profiling Latino drivers. The Department of Justice also found that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office had engaged in discriminatory policing including racial profiling and illegal searches—violating both federal law and the Constitution. President Trump’s pardon was issued before Arpaio was formally sentenced or granted appeal. An amicus brief filed by Erwin Chemerinsky on September 11, 2017, argues Trump’s pardon is constitutionally invalid. An executive pardon for a contempt of court charge was last explicitly addressed in the century-old case of Ex Parte Grossman. Trump’s pardon deserves scrutiny because it undermines the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches while also emboldening future disrespect for the rule of law. The Arpaio pardon is an attack on the judiciary as a whole, beyond a particular judge and his orders.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 250 (2018)
  • Restoring Trust with Trusts: Constructive and Blind Trusts as Remedies for Presidential Violations of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause
    Kimberly Breedon and A. Christopher Bryant
    President Trump has a way of enlarging the vocabulary of public discourse. Among the many examples, we focus on the allegations that he has received, and continues to receive, constitutionally prohibited “emoluments,” a term presently frequenting newspaper headlines but which few could have spelled let alone defined two years ago. To be sure, the term’s definition remains elusive. That much if little else is made clear by the legal papers submitted in pending lawsuits attacking the legality of various Trump commercial enterprises operating concurrently with his presence in the nation’s highest office. In two places the Constitution limits the President’s receipt of “emoluments.” As we detail below, to date three lawsuits have claimed that President Trump is guilty of innumerable, continuing violations of these prohibitions. While the complaints in these cases devote many words to describing the alleged unconstitutional conduct, they are surprisingly laconic and vague on what relief would be appropriate were the plaintiffs to prevail. In this essay, we bracket the merits and consider whether a constructive trust, a blind trust, or both would be appropriate remedies were a president deemed to have violated either or both Emoluments Clauses.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 284 (2018)
  • THe History of the Freedom of Information Act's Apparent Failure to Define "Record," and the Disconcerting Trend of Applying Electronic Discovery Protocol to the FOIA
    Julia P. Eckart
    In writing this article, the questions became does the FOIA, and its subsequent amendments, really fail to define “record?” If a federal agency is able to determine what is a record under the FOIA and if it determines an agency record is one as defined by the Federal Records Act can it now exclude certain items from the definition of agency record for purposes of the FOIA, e.g. metadata? What should be the definition of an agency “record” under the FOIA in the digital age? Is it appropriate to reference E-Discovery protocols to the FOIA? These are some of the questions this author attempts to answer. In order to answer these questions, one must first examine the difference between records in the pre-digital world versus records in the digital world, the history of the FOIA and its various amendments, the purpose of the FOIA versus the purpose of Discovery (now E-Discovery), and the application of E-Discovery protocols to the FOIA process.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 313 (2018)
  • The Quest for Black Voting Rights in New York State
    Bennett Liebman
    There is a tendency to oversimplify the battle over black voting rights (and civil rights in general) in nineteenth century America as a struggle between the South and the North, with the North largely in sympathy with increasing the right of suffrage, and the South largely in opposition to expansion of suffrage. This is not an accurate portrayal. States like Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey (which had previously authorized black voting) abandoned black voting in the nineteenth century by amending their constitutions. Before the Civil War, only in the New England states of Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire could blacks vote on the same footing as whites. Every state admitted to the Union between 1820 and 1865 prevented black suffrage.4 Between 1865 and 1868, referenda on black suffrage were held in two territories and seven states in the North. They were defeated in seven of the jurisdictions. They achieved victory in Iowa and on the third attempt in Minnesota. Both Iowa and Minnesota had miniscule black populations. Disenfranchisement of blacks across the nation was the general rule, not the exception. In New York, the voters of the State for a period of nearly fifty years firmly resisted the notion of providing black males the same access to the ballot as white males. “The most important of the referenda held in New York in the nineteenth century were the three on the question of whether or not to remove the $250 property qualification requirement from Negro voters—a qualification which was not imposed on white voters since 1821.” In the referenda held in 1846, 1860, and 1869, the voters of New York State refused to eliminate the property qualification for black voters. Only the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 would end the legal discrimination against black males voting in New York State.
    11 Alb. Govt. L. Rev. 389 (2018)

View All Past Print Volumes

​​