Gubernatorial Veto Powers and the Size of Legislative Coalitions

Few political institutions are as central to theories of lawmaking as the executive veto. Despite its importance, institutional continuity at the national level has precluded identification of empirical effects of the veto on legislative behavior. We address this limitation and present evidence from the states demonstrating how the veto affects the formation of legislative coalitions and, indirectly, executive influence over policymaking. We find consistent evidence that the presence and strength of gubernatorial veto powers affect the lawmaking behavior of state legislatures. Our analysis shows how institutional provisions condition executives' ability to affect policy outcomes in separation‐of‐powers systems.     

Preserving the Law’s Coherence: Citizens United v. FEC and Stare Decisis

In addition to striking down the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that limited the amount of money corporations and unions could spend on independent expenditures, Citizens United v. FEC overturned two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, an action that stands in contrast to the principle of stare decisis. This article analyzes the discussions of stare decisis in the various Citizens United opinions and compares these discussions to existing scholarly debate on the proper role of stare decisis in constitutional law. It also examines citations and discussions of Citizens United in state supreme court and federal circuit court of appeals cases to analyze how the justices’ discussions of stare decisis in Citizens United have influenced lower courts. The article concludes that the Citizens United opinions that discussed stare decisis — particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion and Chief Justice John Roberts’ concurrence — are highly problematic for a number of reasons. The applications of stare decisis in the opinions were also flawed. Citizens United has thus made it even easier for lower courts to abandon stare decisis and overturn precedent.     

Linking ammonium nitrate-aluminum (AN-AL) post-blast residues to pre-blast explosive materials using isotope ratio and trace elemental analysis for source attribution

Forensic science practitioners are often called upon to attribute crimes using trace evidence, such as explosive remnants, with the ultimate goal of associating a crime with a suspect or suspects in order to prevent further attacks. The explosive charge is an attractive component for attribution in crimes involving explosives as there are limited pathways for acquisition. However, there is currently no capability to link an explosive charge to its source via post-blast trace residues using isotope ratios or trace elements. Here, we sought to determine if pre-blast attribution signatures are preserved after detonation and can be subsequently recovered and detected. A field study was conducted to recover samples of post-blast explosives from controlled detonations of ammonium nitrate-aluminum (AN-Al), which were then analyzed via isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) for quantitation and profiling of isotopes ratio and trace element signatures, respectively. Oxygen and nitrogen isotope ratios from AN-Al yielded some of the most promising results with considerable overlap within one standard deviation of the reference between the spreads of pre- and post-blast data. Trace element results from AN-Al support the findings in the isotope ratio data, with 26 elements detected in both pre- and post-blast samples, and several elements including B, Cd, Cr, Ni, Sn, V, and Zn showing considerable overlap. These preliminary results provide a proof-of-concept for the development of forensic examinations that can attribute signatures from post-blast debris to signatures in pre-blast explosive materials for use in future investigations.     

Protecting Childhood: Rights,Social Goals and the First Amendment in the Context of the Child Online Protection Act

In Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, the Supreme Court of the United States reintroduced a subject matter test into libel law, holding that private figures defamed in the discussion of matters of private concern did not need to prove actual malice to collect punitive or presumed damages. The sweeping language of some of opinions, coupled with the Supreme Court's references to subject matter in subsequent cases, led to confusion over whether and how constitutional protections apply in private plaintiff-private issue cases. This article explores how lower federal and state appellate courts have interpreted Dun & Bradstreet and offers three alternate solutions to appropriately balance the First Amendment rights of defendants with the reputational interests of private plaintiffs in cases arising from the discussion of matters of private concern.     

Winners and Losers in the Postcommunist Transition: New Evidence from Estonia

An American specialist on Russian politics and federalism examines the democratizing effects, intended and unintended, of President Vladimir Putin's federative reforms. Focus is on the "harmonization" of regional constitutions and legislation with federal laws and the RF Constitution in the name of the "reintegration of Russia's legal space." On the basis of detailed analysis of changes in regional constitutions and laws ensuing from the harmonization policy, the author assesses the impact of this aspect of the reforms on democratization in Russia's regions. Regional issues examined include the separation and balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, political and civil rights, the level of demand for democratic laws and independent judicial review, and the emergence of stakeholders of these reforms within civil society.     

‘Omnus et Singulatim’: Establishing the Relationship Between Transitional Justice and Neoliberalism

First developed by human rights lawyers and activists, transitional justice emerged from the so-called third wave of democratisations in Latin America. Over the last 30 years, transitional justice has risen to become a ‘global project’ of global governance. Locating the emergence of transitional justice within the global rise of neoliberalism, this article shows that transitional justice serves an important function in regards to the particularly neoliberal contours of many transitions. Understanding this relation, the article argues, is best served with recourse to what Wendy Brown describes as neoliberalism’s practice of omnus et singulatim, a double process through which ‘communities’ are gathered together as stakeholders to take part in economic activities whilst simultaneously being individualised as ‘responsibilised’ and self-sufficient entrepreneurial units. Taking this concept, I argue that transitional justice also undertakes a process of omnus et singulatim that usefully prefigures and supports processes of neoliberalisation during ‘transition’. Transitional justice, it concludes, does the necessary work of bringing conflictual, traumatised, societies back together, whilst doing so on terms that do not threaten but instead prefigure the individualising demands made upon subjects at the sites of neoliberal transition.