No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Observations on the Current Growth of the Law*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
Extract
Travel is a great teacher. It focuses our attention by compelling comparisons between the unfamiliar and the familiar. It develops perspective by inviting the measurement of differences and similarities between what we see before us and what we have left behind.
In visiting the brave new world of Israel, Americans note many features different from our own country and some that remind us of home. As to our attitude towards the law, however, there is no doubt that in spite of our very different histories we march to the same drummer with you. Israel and America are both law-based societies. We share in common the fundamental belief that no ordered society can exist or thrive except under the law, that all persons (including the state) are equal under law, and that individual liberty is dependent on the law and on its fair and steady enforcement by judges independent of the other branches of government.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1980
References
1 Kaufman, Irving R. (Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) “Maintaining Judicial Independence” (1980) 66 A.B.A.J. 470.Google Scholar
2 E.g., Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); see also, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
3 E.g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (the right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to have counsel present and appointed if necessary before custodial police questioning); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (the right to have illegally seized evidence excluded at trial).
4 E.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972); Holt v. Sarver, 309 F. Supp. 362 (E.D. Ark. 1970) (Holt II), aff'd 442 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1971).
5 E.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1974); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
6 E.g., Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1970).
7 E.g., Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (1976); Roth v. Board of Regents of State Colleges, 408 U.S. 564 (1972).
8 E.g., Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).
9 E.g., Richmond Newspaper Inc. v. Virginia, 48 U.S.L.W. 5008 (July 2, 1980); Gannett Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979); Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976).
10 Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-4.
11 Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619.
12 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1975a–1975d, 2000a to 2000h-6.
13 Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4374.
14 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Pub. L. No. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829 (codified in scattered sections of titles 5, 18, 29, 31, 42 U.S.C.).
15 Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. § 661, 42 U.S.C. § 3142–1.
16 E.g., Social Security Act, §§ 201–231, 1801–1879, 1901 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–431, 1395, 1396 et seq.
17 Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.
18 Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, Pub. L. No. 36–257, 73 Stat. 519 (codified in scattered sections of 29 U.S.C.).
19 Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1221–1225.
20 Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 23.
21 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 267 (1962) (Frankfurter J., dissenting).
22 Theberge, Leonard J. in the Introduction to The Judiciary in a Democratic Society (Lexington Books, 1979).Google Scholar
23 Iredell Jenkins, Social Order and The Limits of Law.