After his election as Venezuela’s President in 1999, the late Hugo Chávez oversaw a gradual, but unmistakable, consolidation of power. At the time of his death, Mr. Chávez controlled nearly all important institutions in Venezuela. Although the Chávez regime was unchallenged in its exercise of power – using this power to arrest and detain opponents, silence opposition media, and illegally expropriate billions in private property – it did so under the guise of respect for the rule of law. This amounted to little more than form over substance. After Mr. Chávez’s death, and with the election of President Nicolás Maduro on April 14, 2013, what are the prospects for a return to democracy and genuine rule of law in Venezuela?
On June 11, 2007, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case of al-Marri v. Wright. In this case the Fourth Circuit held that a suspected al Qaeda terrorist who was seized in the United States could not be held in military detention. A roundtable of experts has examined the opinion and has agreed to comment on the importance of the decision, and what it might portend for the future. Bios for the experts that have commented on the case can be found below. Participants in the debate include George Washington Law School Professor Orin Kerr, University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States George Terwilliger, Duke Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, and President and Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center, John Hutson.
The purpose of this American family law survey of cases that have addressed Sharia law-based customs is to explore the nature of potential conflict between the Islamic Sharia socio-religious practices and American family law traditions. This article considers the challenges and potential results of evaluating Muslim family law practices in American family law courts... [Read more!]
This article describes the detention and Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provisions in the National Defense Authorization bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives by a 322-96 vote on May 26, how these provisions are different from the provisions in earlier versions of the bill, and where they are likely to generate opposition. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon introduced the bill in early March and provided updated language for the detention and AUMF sections on May 9. For organizational simplicity, I describe the bill in the order in which its sections appear and compare these sections to the analogous ones in the earlier version.