The Board of Editors is pleased to present Issue 2 of the 2013 Volume of the Illinois Law Review.
First Professors Elmendorf and Schleicher examine the role of the law in enabling an electorate comprised of mostly ignorant voters to obtain meaningful representation and to hold elected officials accountable.
Next, Professor Robinson tests Hobbes’ view that government and law are the wellspring of social order by examining “absent-law” groups that have developed under various conditions throughout history. Professor Robinson’s findings illustrate that despite the wide variety of situations, common patterns of social cooperation and a commitment to justice emerged among the groups in their responses to their often difficult circumstances.
Following, Professor Zaring examines the revolving door between jobs in the public and private sector which supposedly incentivizes government regulators to regulate on behalf of the industry interests for whom they will eventually work.
Further, Professor Alexander examines the three phases in the government’s approach to the legal aspects of detainee policy in the “war on terrorism” in the decade since 9/11.
The issue concludes with notes by Dannia Altemimei, Kerri Eble, and Elena P. Vekilov.
The Board of Editors is pleased to present Issue 1 of the 2013 Volume of the Illinois Law Review.
First, Professor Sperino demonstrates the theoretical and practical difficulties of importing proximate cause principles into employment discrimination law.
Next, Professor Morag-Levine offers an alternative reading of the origins of the Brandeis Brief and of its relation to the constitutional conflicts of the Lochner era.
Following, Professor Tabb demonstrates how the financial world for which the 1978 Bankruptcy Code was written has fundamentally changed, with the rise of dominant secured creditors. This has upset the balance of power, rendering the Code’s scheme obsolete with regard to credit bidding.
Next, Professor Lewinsohn-Zamir challenges the conventional wisdom that monetary remedies are usually a satisfactory substitute for in-kind redress.
Further, Professor Kairys reveals stark differences between the Court’s treatment of modes of speech available to people of ordinary means, and modes available to corporations and the wealthy, and argues that this disparate treatment skews, corrupts, and undermines the democratic process.
The issue concludes with notes by Thomas Berghman, David M. Cummings, and Caitlin T. Harrington.