{"id":52508,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/marci-a-hamilton-archive-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"marci-a-hamilton-archive-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/marci-a-hamilton-archive-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Marci A. Hamilton Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

Legal Commentary: Marci A. Hamilton Archive<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n

SHOULD U.S. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS CHANGE TO FIT WORLD NORMS?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton critiques the growing trend by the United States to follow international copyright norms, even to the detriment of its own constitution’s values and rights. Hamilton argues that issues from copyright duration, to “freeware,” to database protection should be examined according to constitutional values, not global standards.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, May. 24, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

GENERAL LAND USE LAWS AND RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS: THE CONTROVERSY HEATS UP<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton analyzes a coming\n\ntrend of major litigation over the application of land use laws to religious\n\nbuildings. The constitutionality of a federal statute that requires a\n\ncompelling interest whenever land use laws are applied to religious\n\nbuildings will likely be litigated in the Supreme Court. State and local\n\nlaws and regulations, too, are likely to be challenged.
\n<\/span>\nThursday, May. 10, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OPENING UP THE LAW SCHOOLS: WHY THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY\nIS INVALUABLE TO ROBUST DEBATE<\/a>\n\n
\nThe role of the conservative Federalist Society in law schools and the legal\n\nprofession has been much in the news lately — as the Society’s connections\n\nto the Bush Administration have been noted — but few outside the profession\n\nknow much about the Society. FindLaw columnist and Cardozo law professor\n\nMarci Hamilton clues us in on the Society’s role, purpose, and influence on\n\nlaw schools.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Apr. 25, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE RECOUNT OF THE RECOUNT: THREE LESSONS WE CAN LEARN<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and NYU law professor Marci Hamilton reflects on the\n\nlessons we can learn from recent reports (by USA Today and others) that each\n\nPresidential candidate’s favored recount standard would actually, if\n\nadopted, have caused the other candidate to win. Not only are these reports\n\nironic, Hamilton notes, they are also revealing. They show how important it\n\nis to defend and honor the fundamental right to vote, and they also show the\n\nneed for a neutral recount standard that does not favor incumbents or their\n\nparties. Moreover, the parties’ and candidates’ lack of knowledge about\n\nvoting standards — so great that their chosen recount standards would have\n\nhurt their causes — shows that the Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, was wise\n\nto avoid setting a standard, and ordering a recount, itself.
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Apr. 12, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BRINGING THE PEOPLE INTO THE COPYRIGHT ARENA<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and NYU professor Marci Hamilton discusses possible\n\nrepercussions of the increased public awareness of copyright issues that has\n\nresulted from the Napster, MP3.com, and Microsoft legal battles. In the\n\npast, Hamilton explains, the combination of industry influence and public\n\nneglect of copyright issues have led to repeated extensions of the copyright\n\nterm at industry’s behest. Thus, according to Hamilton, the current\n\ncopyright term — equal to the author’s lifespan plus 70 years — is far too\n\nlong. While a constitutional challenge to this lengthy, extended term has\n\nbeen mounted by Stanford Law Professor Professor Lawrence Lessig, among\n\nothers, in the case of Eldred v. Reno, so far that challenge has been\n\nunsuccessful. Therefore, the best remedy, Hamilton suggests, is for the\n\npublic to use its new awareness of copyright issues to fight for legislation\n\nto shorten the term to a more reasonable length.
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Mar. 29, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RELIGION, PUBLIC FUNDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY\n<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and NYU law professor Marci Hamilton explores issues that\n\nmay arise from the operations of President Bush’s new White House Office of\n\nFaith-Based and Community Initiatives, through which government funding will\n\ngo to religious organizations that help their communities. Although the\n\nOffice has contributed to Bush’s high approval ratings, Hamilton tells a\n\ncautionary tale — dating from the administration of Ulysses S. Grant, in\n\nwhich government money also was given to religious groups — of pitfalls the\n\nOffice must strive to avoid. In addition, Hamilton stresses the tension\n\nbetween the Bush Administration’s admitted need to oversee faith-based\n\nprograms for the needy to ensure results are good, and religious\n\norganizations’ recent claims of autonomy, which have sometimes succeeded in\n\ninsulating the organizations from legal process.\n\n\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Mar. 15, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN GARRETT, THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, AND BUSH V. GORE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and NYU law professor Marci Hamilton analyzes the Supreme\n\nCourt’s recent decision in the Garrett case, in which the Court held that\n\nstates cannot be sued by private individuals for damages under the Americans\n\nwith Disabilities Act. Hamilton contends that the decision was right for\n\ntwo independent legal reasons; that it will, in any case, have little\n\npractical impact; and that — contrary to other commentators’ urging — it\n\nhas little, if anything, to do with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v.\n\nGore.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Mar. 01, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S NAPSTER DECISION<\/a>\n\n
\nOn Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the\n\ncontroversial Napster case. FindLaw columnist and NYU law professor Marci\n\nHamilton describes the arguments that persuaded the Ninth Circuit to rule\n\nagainst Napster, contends that the rulings were entirely correct, and\n\nsuggests that Napster’s best route now is to take its case to Congress, not\n\nto seek rehearing of its case before a larger panel of judges.
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Feb. 15, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE HACKER UTOPIA VERSUS THE COPYRIGHT LAW<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and NYU law professor Marci Hamilton considers the current\n\nlegal clash between industries that want to protect copyrights (including\n\nthe\n\npublishing, recording, and film industries) and hackers who believe that\n\n“Information wants to be free.” Hamilton argues that both the Constitution\n\nand the copyright law set up a system in which information can be both\n\nsecret\n\nand proprietary and that, as a result, the hackers’ “free information”\n\nsociety could only be effected by Constitutional amendment and repeal of the\n\ncopyright law.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Feb. 01, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE ASHCROFT NOMINATION: SEPARATING THE MAN FROM THE OFFICE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and NYU law professor Marci Hamilton, after attending the\n\nAshcroft hearings, comments on what should, and should not be, relevant to\n\nthe Senate’s exercise of its confirmation process power. Hamilton contends\n\nthat the fact that Ashcroft appears well-liked by Senators of both parties\n\nis\n\nirrelevant — as is the fact that his beliefs may diverge from those of some\n\nDemocratic Senators. What matters to Ashcroft’s confirmation for the\n\nAttorney General position, Hamilton argues, is Ashcroft’s demonstrated\n\ncommitment to the rule of law.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Jan. 18, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 5<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n