State constitutions - homosexual sodomy - Kentucky Supreme Court finds that criminalization of homosexual sodomy violates state constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection
Article Abstract:
The Kentucky Supreme Court in Commonwealth v Wasson struck down the state's sodomy law on state constitutional grounds of right to privacy and equal protection. The Kentucky court's action represented a significant departure from the federal decision in Bowers v Hardwick and therefore a potential advance for state constitutionalism. However, the opinion was insufficiently clear in its doctrinal basis, and this, coupled with the inherent weakness of state constitutional rights, makes it unlikely that this decision will promote the expansion of homosexual rights by other state courts.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The criminalization of copyright infringement in the digital era
Article Abstract:
Congress toughened the criminal penalties for copyright infringement with two recent laws. The No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 reduced the requirements for criminal copyright infringement, while the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 broadened the scope of criminal penalties. However, these laws overlook the weakening effect that the new digital technology has had on the criminal enforcement of copyright. Also, these laws are likely to deter the free flow of information between private parties.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1999
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
State constitutions - cruel or unusual punishment - Michigan Supreme Court casts doubt on its commitment to adhere to federal interpretations of parallel constitutional provisions
Article Abstract:
The Michigan Supreme Court in People v Bullock failed to provide compelling reasons for deviating from the US Supreme Court ruling in Harmelin v Michigan concerning cruel and unusual punishment. The court should have either explicitly overruled the compelling reason standard or established an exception for Eighth Amendment cases. Instead, the decision creates doubt as to the court's future deference to federal interpretations of parallel state constitutional provisions.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: The limits of choice: school choice reform and state constitutional guarantees of educational quality. A critique of the Bush education proposal
- Abstracts: Sober second thoughts: reflections on two decades of constitutional regulation of capital punishment. Rethinking the incorporation of the Establishment Clause: a federalist view
- Abstracts: Privatizing brings new challenges; Latin America. Chile's privatization of sanitation could be model; orderly, government-regulated transition to private sector can be prototype for Latin America
- Abstracts: Positive rights and state constitutions: the limits of federal rationality review. Interpretation and authority in state constitutionalism
- Abstracts: Severance pay in corporate transactions. Amendment to s. 83 regulations eliminates requirement that employers withhold tax in order to take deduction