Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This study involves an experiment with 77 law students. It looks at the seprarability of preferences in cases involving multiple issues. I investigate whether decision-makers are able to separate their views on divisive policy matters from a seemingly neutral “threshold” decision they are asked to make in a complex case. Specifically, participants were given a mock legal brief containing identical legal arguments on both sides of a standing dispute. All participants were told that the issue arose in the context of a case where the issues of (1) abortion (2) free speech and (3) restrictions on the political expression of public employees were potentially salient in the dispute on the merits. The experiment involved a 2 x 2 factorial design where the content of the political expression at issue (pro-life vs. pro-choice) and the jurisdiction the case arose in (jurisdiction with direct authority on the standing issue vs. without direct authority on the standing issue) were experimentally controlled. Participants’ policy views were measured to test how they influenced the threshold standing decision. Findings demonstrate participants were able to separate views on abortion and restrictions on public employees from the standing decision. Opinions on free speech, however, did influence the standing decision a direction consistent with attitudinal hypotheses. The effect was more pronounced for participants in treatment conditions with no controlling legal authority on the standing issue.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: John Locke and Thomas Hobbes saw eye to eye when it came to the superiority of the state over the church for the promotion of the public good. While Hobbes demoted organized religion to a level of impotence within the state, Locke championed toleration as an antidote to the sectarian infighting and religious persecution rampant in his day. The relevance of their words on our contemporary international situation is indeed great, perhaps more instructive than ever. This paper outlines and evaluates the role of religion in classical liberal thought, and relates it to current issues surrounding the role of religion in politics in terms of current cultural and policy challenges facing a post-September 11th United States.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Most of the literature on federalism has emphasized the relationship between national and subnational governments, but has overlooked the organization of power at the subnational level. Likewise, most of the debate on the separation of powers in presidential, parliamentary, and mixed systems has neglected the role of federalism in bolstering the separation of powers. In this paper, we argue federalism may be defined as a constitutional arrangement that creates executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government at the subnational level. This definition has important implications for the literatures on federalism and the separation of powers, two themes often treated in isolation. First, it directs the attention of students of federalism to the neglected subject of the separation of powers at the subnational level. Second, it directs the attention of students of the separation of powers to the issue of federalism. We show that the existence of institutional mechanisms that override the subnational separation of powers in federal systems is problematic for democracy and deserves further attention. We also point to the fact that by safeguarding the subnational separation of powers, federalism can strengthen democracy.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed