Search for: "Bradley D. Sharp "
Results 21 - 28
of 28
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2022, 6:10 am
Holcomb (R); Bradley B. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:39 pm
Supp. 2d 863 (D. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 8:25 am
The case brings into sharp focus the difference of approach between US Courts and those in Europe over the issue of “hate speech”. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 12:47 pm
Dieter Dörr, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Faculty of Law (Germany); Professor Udo Fink Doerr, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Faculty of Law (Germany); Professor Russell Weaver, University of Louisville, Louis D. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 1:20 pm
by Marty Lederman By Marty Lederman and Steve Vladeck* Section 1021 of the NDAA and the Laws of War In our companion post, we explained that section 1021 of the NDAA will not have the dramatic effects that many critics have predicted–in particular, that it will not affect the unresolved question of whether the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) would authorize a future President to place a U.S citizen or resident who is apprehended in the United States in long-term military… [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 5:17 am
The history of how this came to be is vexed, and we need not review the involved story of the roles variously played by Professor Glueck, Colonel Chanler, Colonel Bernays, President Roosevelt, Secretary Stimson, Justice Jackson, and Baron Shawcross that led to framing the trial around the crime of aggressive war.[11] As Jonathan Bush has demonstrated, the decision made for sharp disagreements not only among the Allied powers – the French in particular never accepted this stratagem… [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 7:30 am
Buccola’s work, with Alison Buccola, provides as convincing as argument – better than, say, James Bradley Thayer’s defense of Gelpcke v. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 1:48 pm
By Marty Lederman and Steve Vladeck* [Cross-posted at OpinioJuris] Section 1021 of the NDAA and the Laws of War In our companion post, we explained that section 1021 of the NDAA will not have the dramatic effects that many critics have predicted–in particular, that it will not affect the unresolved question of whether the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) would authorize a future President to place a U.S citizen or resident who is apprehended in the United States in… [read post]
