Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Defense for Children International declared in Bethlehem that kids do not belong behind bars. Kids should go to school, play with their friends, and be safe at home. The scientific evidence reviewed by prestigious commissions such as the U.S. National Research Council and CDC, as well as international norms, agree that tackling – in the community – the early risk factors that cause youth crime and family violence lowers crime victimization for less. Yet for forty years, the federal government has introduced crime bills that incite states, counties, and cities to invest in more police, prisoners, and judges – even with victimization dropping. My book – Less Law, More Order – justifies a bill that incites investment in more public health, child care, female violence counselors, as well as meaningful jobs for disadvantaged mothers. This bill will reduce victimization to European and Canadian levels while cutting taxes and investing in positive futures for disadvantaged young Americans. Why should U.S. taxpayers pay double for law and order when counterparts have less enforcement and fewer fatalities? It is mayors not enforcement who are the front line against violence in America. Voters agree two to one.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In 1990, New Zealand adopted a statutory Bill of Rights, known by its acronym “the BORA.” A large proportion of the early, high-profile cases that invoked the BORA dealt involved issues of criminal rights, leading some popular commentators to deride it as a “drunk-drivers’ charter.” Most analysis of the BORA focuses on the consequences of the Act for understandings of parliamentary sovereignty or on technical, doctrinal issues pertaining to the Act’s interpretation. Despite having been on the books for sixteen years, no comprehensive, empirical analysis of litigation patterns under the BORA has yet been undertaken. As a result, scholars are unable to confirm or deny popular impressions concerning the use of the BORA. I propose creating a database and tracing the pattern of BORA cases before the New Zealand courts, specifying the key cases. This paper then examines the state and societal support structures for legal mobilization that have existed since 1990 and evaluates whether they explain the pattern of Bill of Rights litigation.

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Recently introduced bills of rights in parliamentary jurisdictions such as Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Australia differ from the more court-centred approach associated with the American Bill of Rights in the following two respects. First, with the exception of Canada, judicial review is distinguished from judicial supremacy. While these parliamentary jurisdictions now recognize judicial rights review as a legitimate component of constitutionalism, they also formally acknowledge the legitimacy of political dissent from judicial rulings. Second, these bills of rights promote non-judicial rights-review, which is manifested in new procedures and incentives for the systematic review of proposed legislation prior to, and potentially independent of, judicial review. This paper focuses on this second point of difference: non-judicial rights review. This concept embraces the following ideas: i) rights protection does not rest primarily on judicial remedies to redress infringements that have already occurred, but is heavily dependent upon incentives and procedures to reduce the incident of rights abuses from actually occurring; and ii) political decisions to proceed with legislation are made only after having confronted their implications for protected rights. The above ideas represent a significantly different understanding of the function of a bill of rights than in more conventional approaches. They also have the potential to broaden the perspectives undertaken when making judgments about how rights appropriately guide and constrain state actions. This paper asks the following questions. How is political behaviour affected by the institutionalisation of new incentives and obligations for rights-based evaluations of legislative proposals? Do cabinet and parliament consciously reflect on the rights-dimension of proposed legislation and, if so, how does this affect political deliberation? Does political rights review contribute to the legalization of legislative decision-making? The jurisdictional focus will be on the United Kingdom, although the constraints and challenges arising there are relevant for other parliamentary jurisdictions with variations on this model.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The story of the AgJobs bill provides a valuable case study for examining various legisprudential theories and their applicability to immigration reform, and for developing a new theoretical framework for analyzing legislative change in the immigration context. The AgJobs bill, an apparent example of pluralism in action, was the result of years of arduous negotiations and a historic compromise between agricultural producers and the United Farmworkers, traditional adversaries. Yet in the waning days of the 108th Congress when the bill was to be introduced as an amendment to the Class Action bill, the Administration brought pressure to bear on the bill's principal sponsor asking him not to introduce it. I will examine the negotiations leading up to the historic bill and the role of different actors, including the United Farmworkers, growers, staffers and members of Congress. I will then analyze developments in both houses of Congress following the bill's introduction in the 106th and 108th Congress, drawing on theories of pluralism and instrumentalism to explain first how the historic compromise was reached, became a Congressional bill, and earned the support of 63 cosponsors, as well as public choice, proceduralist, institutionalist theories of legislation to explain why the bill failed in both the 106th and 108th Congresses.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: “Presidential power in an era of divided government”.
While this may sound paradoxical, the modern governmental context
highlights the reality of this statement. Given the modern political
environment where public opinion is the currency of individualized
pluralism, Samuel Kernell (1997) claims that ‘going public’ represents
the most effective strategy for presidential influence. Paul Light
(1999) asserts that agenda setting can be a formidable source of
presidential influence: “…control of the agenda becomes a primary tool
for securing and extending power” (2). Although a rich agenda setting
literature exists which is frequently utilized to examine congressional
policy making and its subsequent implications for representation writ
large (e.g. Cobb and Elder 1983; Kingdon 1984; Baumgartner and Jones
1993), studies of presidential agenda setting are more sparse (Light
1999; Cohen 1995). The presidencies of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon
present a unique opportunity to explore problem definition and agenda
setting in the context of the domestic policy arena. Intriguing aspects
of the policy process are overlooked when scholars myopically hone in
on the legislative branch to the (relative) exclusion of the executive
branch. This paper endeavors to illuminate the important role that two
presidents played in setting the welfare reform agenda. As such, an
exploration of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan as a case of policy
failure and Clinton’s Welfare Reform as a case of policy success will
undoubtedly shed new theoretical insight and raise questions for future
research in the areas of problem definition and presidential agenda
setting. Indeed, these two policy cases amply demonstrate the
inseparability of the concepts of problem definition and agenda
setting. Finally, a ‘window of opportunity’ exists to test different
theories of agenda setting for efficacy with regard to the president. A
perusal of presidential rhetoric, in the form of speeches, press
releases, and other public statements, will be utilized to determine
the extent to which welfare reform permeated Nixon and Clinton’s public
strategies. Furthermore, Deborah Stone’s theory of causal stories will
serve as an analytical framework whereby an examination of competing
efforts to define the problem both within and outside the presidential
arena will be conducted. Since the initial framing and definition of a
policy problem has a significant impact on the shape and tenor of a
policy, presidential agenda setting has real implications for public
opinion concerning and congressional estimations about public policies,
particularly salient ones like welfare reform.