In these challenging times, JURIST is pledged to provide accurate, well-documented, clear and comprehensive coverage of the rule of law in crisis. But we're a non-profit service powered by law students. We need financial support from our global readership to help us train our volunteers, maintain our website, and expand our reach. Please donate to support our unique educational mission and encourage our dedicated staff in their public commitment to make a more just world. Thank you!

Site Search

« Previous 1 … 467 468 469

Posts
Abuse of Iraqi Detainees at Abu Ghraib: Will Prosecution and Cashiering of a Few Soldiers Comply With International Law? JURIST Guest Columnist and international law scholar Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center says that legal responsibility for the Abu Ghraib prison abuses extends beyond the few soldiers currently subject to investigation and prosecuti (More)
Bush v. Gore and the Prestige of the Supreme Court: A Self-inflicted Wound? The Court's authority — possessed of neither the purse nor the sword — ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by the Court's complete detachment, in fact and appearance, from (More)

« Previous 1 … 467 468 469

THIS DAY @ LAW

Maurice Papon convicted of war crimes

On April 2, 1998, Maurice Papon was convicted of war crimes for his role in deporting French Jews to concentration camps during the Nazi occupation of France. Under German occupation, Papon served as the supervisor of the Service for Jewish Questions in Bordeaux from which he collaborated with the Nazi S.S. and oversaw the deportation of 1,560 Jewish men, women, and children to concentration camps.

Read an biography of Maurice Papon from the BBC.

Massachusetts enacted Vietnam antiwar bill

On April 2, 1970, the Governor of Massachusetts signed into law an anti-Vietnam War bill providing that no inhabitant of Massachusetts inducted into or serving in the armed forces "shall be required to serve" abroad in an armed hostility that had not been declared a war by Congress under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution.

Supporters of the legislation hoped that the US Supreme Court would seize on the obvious conflict that the bill created between state and federal law and would rule on the constitutionality of the Vietnam War itself, but the Court refused to exercise original jurisdiction, forcing the case into the lower federal courts. See Anthony D'Amato, Massachusetts In The Federal Courts: The Constitutionality Of The Vietnam War [PDF], 4 Journal of Law Reform (1970).