Archive for the ‘Law Rev (GW)’ Category

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:5/6 (September 2009)

posted by George Washington Law Review

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:5/6 (September 2009)

(Contents of current and past issues are available from our website.)

Robert Hockett, Justice in Time, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1135 (2009) [PDF]

Ori J. Herstein, The Identity and (Legal) Rights of Future Generations, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1173 (2009) [PDF]

David DeGrazia, Just(ice) in Time for Future Generations: A Response to Hockett and Herstein , 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1216 (2009) [PDF]

Neil H. Buchanan, What Do We Owe Future Generations?, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1237 (2009) [PDF]

Daniel Shaviro, The Long-Term U.S. Fiscal Gap: Is the Main Problem Generational Inequity?, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1298 (2009) [PDF]

Lawrence Zelenak, Does Intergenerational Justice Require Rising Standards of Living?, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1358 (2009) [PDF]

Nancy J. Altman, Social Security and Intergenerational Justice, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1383 (2009) [PDF]

Neil H. Buchanan, Four out of Four Panelists Agree: U.S. Fiscal Policy Does Not Cheat Future Generations, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1402 (2009) [PDF]

Jamison E. Colburn, Splitting the Atom of Property: Rights Experimentalism as Obligation to Future Generations, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1411 (2009) [PDF]

Matthew D. Adler, Future Generations: A Prioritarian View, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1478 (2009) [PDF]

William W. Buzbee, Preemption Hard Look Review, Regulatory Interaction, and the Quest for Stewardship and Intergenerational Equity , 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1521 (2009) [PDF]

Sherry F. Colb, To Whom Do We Refer When We Speak of Obligations to “Future Generations”? Reproductive Rights and the Intergenerational Community, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1521 (2009) [PDF]

Ann Shalleck, Offspring and Bodies: Dependency and Vulnerability in the Constitutional Jurisprudence of Reproductive Rights, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1620 (2009) [PDF]

Michael C. Dorf, The Aspirational Constitution, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1631 (2009) [PDF]

  October 1, 2009 at 1:55 pm   Posted in: Law Rev (GW), Uncategorized   Print This Post   No Comments

The George Washington Law Review

posted by George Washington Law Review

The George Washington Law Review will soon launch launch its new web site and online forum, Arguendo. Arguendo will publish original articles and essays directly to the web, giving contributing authors an opportunity to contribute to scholarly discourse much sooner than with traditional (print) legal scholarship. In general, such pieces should range from 5,000 – 10,000 words (including footnotes), though exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Law Review will subsequently publish all non-student (and select student) pieces exceeding 5,000 words in a cumulative print issue at the end of the year. This will allow contributing authors both to have their work published more quickly than is standard for legal periodicals and to receive a traditional citation, e.g., 78 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. ___ (2009), for their piece.

We are currently accepting submissions for Arguendo and will continue doing so on a rolling basis. If interested in publishing on Arguendo, please e-mail gwlrarguendo@law.gwu.edu with a copy of your essay and curriculum vitae attached. Please also e-mail that address with any questions about Arguendo or our publication process.

  September 14, 2009 at 7:28 am   Posted in: Law Rev (GW), Uncategorized   Print This Post   No Comments

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:4 (June 2009)

posted by George Washington Law Review

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:4 (June 2009)

(Contents of current and past issues are available from our website.)

Elizabeth Magill, Agency Self-Regulation, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 859 (2009) [PDF]

John F. Duffy, Are Administrative Patent Judges Unconstitutional?, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 904 (2009) [PDF]

Cary Coglianese, Heather Kilmartin, and Evan Mendelson, Transparency and Public Participation in the Federal Rulemaking Process: Recommendations for the New Administration , 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 924 (2009) [PDF]

Peter H. Schuck, Is a Competent Federal Government Becoming Oxymoronic?, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 973 (2009) [PDF]

Christopher Carlberg, Early to Bed for Federal Regulations: A New Attempt to Avoid “Midnight Regulations” and Its Effect on Political Accountability, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 992 (2009) [PDF]

Andrew Croner, Morrison, Edmond, and the Power of Appointments, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1002 (2009) [PDF]

Shaina N. Elias, Challenges to Inclusion on the “No-Fly List” Should Fly in District Court: Considering the Jurisdictional Implications of Administrative Agency Structure, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1015 (2009) [PDF]

Ben Everard, Early Termination Fees: Fair Game or Federally Preempted?, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1033 (2009) [PDF]

Elliot Golding, Medicare Part D: Rights Without Remedies, Bars to Relief, and Miles of Red Tape, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1044 (2009) [PDF]

Julian Helisek, The Fault, Dear PCAOB, Lies Not in the Appointments Clause, but in the Removal Power, That You Are Unconstitutional, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1063 (2009) [PDF]

Elliott Karr, Independent Litigation Authority and Calls for the View of the Solicitor General , 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1080 (2009) [PDF]

Megan Keane, Patent Reexamination and the Seventh Amendment, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1101 (2009) [PDF]

Stephen Satterfield, A New Interpretation, and Absurd Result: How HHS Is Short-Changing Children with Severe Mental Illness , 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1114 (2009) [PDF]

  August 28, 2009 at 8:49 am   Posted in: Law Rev (GW)   Print This Post   No Comments

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:3 (April 2009)

posted by George Washington Law Review

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:3 (April 2009)

(Contents of current and past issues are available from our website.)

Matthew I. Hall, The Partially Prudential Doctrine of Mootness, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 562 (2009) [PDF]

Anthony J. Colangelo, “De facto Sovereignty”: Boumediene and Beyond, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 623 (2009) [PDF]

William W. Bratton, Unentrapped, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 677 (2009) [PDF]

Lawrence A. Cunningham, The New Federal Corporation Law?, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 685 (2009) [PDF]

M. Todd Henderson, Two Visions of Corporate Law, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 708 (2009) [PDF]

Robert B. Ahdieh, The (Misunderstood) Genius of American Corporate Law, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 730 (2009) [PDF]

Christopher Carlberg, Cooperative Noncooperation: A Proposal for an Effective Uniform Noncooperation Immigration Policy for Local Governments, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 730 (2009) [PDF]

Andrew Croner, A Snake in the Grass?: Section 798 of the Espionage Act and Its Constitutionality as Applied to the Press, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 766 (2009) [PDF]

Evan Mayor, The “Bong Hits” Case and Viewpoint Discrimination: A State Law Answer to Protecting Unpopular Student Viewpoints, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 799 (2009) [PDF]

Christopher Meeks, The Pollution Delusion: A Proposal for a Uniform Interpretation of Pollution in General Liability Absolute Pollution Exclusions, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 824 (2009) [PDF]

  May 30, 2009 at 12:11 pm   Posted in: Law Rev (GW)   Print This Post   No Comments

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:2 (February 2009)

posted by George Washington Law Review

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:2 (February 2009)

(Contents of current and past issues are available from our website.)

Articles:

Robert B. Ahdieh, Trapped in a Metaphor: The Limited Implications of Federalism for Corporate Governance, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 255 (2009) [PDF]

Chad M. Oldfather, Universal De Novo Review, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 308 (2009) [PDF]

Todd S. Aagaard, Factual Premises of Statutory Interpretation in Agency Review Cases, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 366 (2009) [PDF]

Notes:

Rachel Frankel, Sharks and Minnows: Using Temporary Alien Deportation Immunity to Catch the Big Fish, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 431 (2009) [PDF]

Rita Glasionov, In Furtherance of Transparency and Litigants’ Rights: Reforming the State Secrets Privilege, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 458 (2009) [PDF]

Megha Shah, Grassroots Enforcement of EISA: The Need for a Citizen Suit Provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 488 (2009) [PDF]

Ross L. Weiner, The Office of Legal Counsel and Torture: The Law as Both a Sword and Shield, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 524 (2009) [PDF]

  May 15, 2009 at 8:41 am   Posted in: Law Rev (GW)   Print This Post   No Comments

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:1 (November 2008)

posted by George Washington Law Review

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:1 (November 2008)

(Contents of current and past issues are available from our website.)

Articles:

Stuart Minor Benjamin and Arti K. Rai, Fixing Innovation Policy: A Structural Perspective , 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2008) [PDF]

Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, Exhuming the Seemingly Moribund Declaration of War, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 89 (2008) [PDF]

Notes:

Christopher Bruno, A Right to Decide Not to Be a Legal Father: Gonzales v. Carhart and the Acceptance of Emotional Harm as a Constitutionally Protected Interest, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 141 (2008) [PDF]

Shaina N. Elias, From Bereavement to Banishment: The Deportation of Surviving Alien Spouses Under the “Widow Penalty” , 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 172 (2008) [PDF]

Stephen Satterfield, Still Crying Out for Clarification: The Scope of Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute After Sosa, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 216 (2008) [PDF]

  April 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm   Posted in: Law Rev (GW)   Print This Post   No Comments

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:6 (June 2008)

posted by George Washington Law Review

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:6 (June 2008)

(Contents of current and past issues are available from our website.)

Articles:

Radhika Rao, Equal Liberty: Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Equality, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1457 (2008) [PDF]

John A. Robertson, Assisting Reproduction, Choosing Genes, and the Scope of Reproductive Freedom , 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1490 (2008) [PDF]

Sonia M. Suter, The “Repugnance” Lens of Gonzales v. Carhart and Other Theories of Reproductive Rights: Evaluating Advanced Reproductive Technologies, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1514 (2008) [PDF]

Rebecca Dresser, From Double Standard to Double Bind: Informed Choice in Abortion Law, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1599 (2008) [PDF]

Marsha Garrison, Regulating Reproduction, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1623 (2008) [PDF]

Michele Goodwin, Prosecuting the Womb, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1657 (2008) [PDF]

June Carbone, If I Say “Yes” to Regulation Today, Will You Still Respect me in The Morning?, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1747 (2008) [PDF]

John Gastil, Justin Reedy, Donald Braman, & Dan M. Kahan, Deliberation Across the Cultural Divide: Assessing the Potential for Reconciling Conflicting Cultural Orientations to Reproductive Technology, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1772 (2008) [PDF]

  January 16, 2009 at 4:34 pm   Posted in: Law Rev (GW), Law Rev Contents   Print This Post   No Comments

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:2 (February 2008)

posted by George Washington Law Review

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:2 (February 2008)

(Contents of current and past issues are available from our website.)

Lecture:

Roger H. Trangsrud, James F. Humphreys Complex Litigation Lecture:

The Adversary System and Modern Class Action Practice, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 181 (2008) [PDF]

Articles:

Gia B. Lee, The President’s Secrets, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 197 (2008) [PDF]

Jeffrey M. Hirsch, The Silicon Bullet: Will the Internet Kill the NLRA?, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 262 (2008) [PDF]

Jonathan Turley, Too Clever By Half: The Unconstitutionality of Partial Representation of the District of Columbia in Congress, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 305 (2008) [PDF]

Notes:

Russell M. Gold, Is This Your Bedroom?: Reconsidering Third-Party Consent Searches Under Modern Living Arrangements, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 375 (2008) [PDF]

Jacob Rogers, A Passive Approach to Regulation of Virtual Worlds, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 405 (2008) [PDF]

R. Andrew Schwentker, Experimenting With the Experimental-Use Exception: Proposals for a Tax Alternative, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 426 (2008) [PDF]

  February 17, 2008 at 6:23 pm   Posted in: Law Rev (GW), Law Rev Contents   Print This Post   No Comments

George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:1 (November 2007)

posted by George Washington Law Review

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:1 (November 2007)

(Contents of current and past issues are available from our website.)

Articles:

Calvin Massey, Two Zones of Prophylaxis: The Scope of the Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Power, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2007) [PDF]

Debra Lyn Bassett, Statutory Interpretation in the Context of Federal Jurisdiction, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 52 (2007) [PDF]

Essay:

Jerry L. Mashaw, Reasoned Administration: The E.U., the U.S., and the Project of Democratic Governance, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 99 (2007) [PDF]

Notes:

Seema Mittal, The Constitutionality of an Expedited Rescission Act: The New Line Item Veto or a New Constitutional Method of Achieving Deficit Reduction?, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 125 (2007) [PDF]

Kathryn E. Vertigan, Foreign Antisuit Injunctions: Taking a Lesson from the Act of State Doctrine, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 155 (2007) [PDF]

  November 13, 2007 at 12:18 am   Posted in: Law Rev (GW), Law Rev Contents   Print This Post   No Comments

Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project

posted by Daniel Solove

I’m pleased to announce a new feature at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Table of Contents Project. We have invited a number of the top law reviews to post the table of contents to their new issues and to provide links to the articles if they are posted on the law review’s website.

The goal of the Table of Contents Project is to provide you with a useful research tool. Finding out about the latest law review publications can be difficult. If you’re like me, you rarely read the physical issues of law reviews anymore; and you don’t have time to constantly keep checking each law review’s website to see if a new issue has been published. Now you don’t have to. Just keep reading Concurring Opinions, and information about the latest law review scholarship will be brought to you – all in one place!

Each journal’s tables of contents will be archived in two categories: (1) a category called Law Rev Contents – collecting all the law review table of contents postings; and (2) a category for each specific law review.

Participating law reviews thus far include:

* Boston College

* Chicago

* Columbia

* Cornell

* Duke

* Emory

* Fordham

* Georgetown

* GW

* Harvard

* Indiana

* Michigan

* Minnesota

* NYU

* Northwestern

* Notre Dame

* Southern California

* Stanford

* Texas

* UCLA

* Vanderbilt

* Virginia

* Washington University

* Yale

We still have a bunch of open invitations, so we anticipate that the number of participants will grow. Unfortunately, we cannot include all law reviews, as this will overwhelm the regular content of our blog.

We hope that you find this new feature to be helpful. We’re very excited about it here, as we believe that this will be of great use to keep you informed about new legal scholarship.

  November 13, 2007 at 12:10 am   Posted in: Administrative Announcements, Law Rev (Boston College), Law Rev (Chicago), Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev (Cornell), Law Rev (Duke), Law Rev (Emory), Law Rev (Fordham), Law Rev (GW), Law Rev (Georgetown), Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev (Indiana), Law Rev (Michigan), Law Rev (Minnesota), Law Rev (NYU), Law Rev (Northwestern), Law Rev (Notre Dame), Law Rev (S Cal), Law Rev (Stanford), Law Rev (Texas), Law Rev (UCLA), Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev (Virginia), Law Rev (Yale), Law Rev Contents   Print This Post   7 Comments

Announcing the Law Review Forum Project

posted by Daniel Solove

I am very pleased to announce a new project here at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Forum Project. We will be hosting online forums for several law reviews. Increasingly, law reviews are creating online forums as companions to their regular law review issues. These forums contain very short response pieces, essays, debates, and other works that attempt to bridge the gap between regular legal scholarship and the blogosphere.

Journals seeking to create their own online forum face two daunting challenges. First, they must create and actively maintain a web presence. Second, they must find ways to attract readers, which is difficult in an age where so many blogs and other websites exist. A wide readership for a website depends upon having daily content. Law review forums produce content sporadically throughout the year at intervals that are not regular enough to attract a significant readership.

Therefore, we have invited a number of law reviews to participate in a partnership with our blog. Throughout the year, each law review will periodically post forum essays here at Concurring Opinions. We are not requiring an exclusive license, so participating law reviews can also cross-post at their own websites.

We see this as a mutually-beneficial arrangement. We can bring great content to our blog, and law reviews can reach our significant audience without the pressures of having to build and maintain an online readership or of having to produce content with regularity.

Law reviews currently with and without existing forums will be participating. Thus far, the following law reviews have agreed to participate:

* Harvard Law Review

* Virginia Law Review

* Michigan Law Review

* University of Pennsylvania Law Review

* Northwestern Law Review

* UCLA Law Review

* George Washington Law Review

In the near future, we hope to be expanding the list of participating law reviews.

  April 24, 2007 at 1:04 am   Posted in: Administrative Announcements, Law Rev (GW), Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev (Michigan), Law Rev (Northwestern), Law Rev (Penn), Law Rev (UCLA), Law Rev (Virginia), Law Rev Forum, Law School (Law Reviews), Law School (Scholarship)   Print This Post   4 Comments