Television Studies by Amanda DiPaolo
Dialogue: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Pop Culture and Pedagogy , 2019
The Politics of Twin Peaks, 2019
Constitutional Law by Amanda DiPaolo
When adjudicating cases dealing with the war powers of the
executive, the Supreme Court has a ten... more When adjudicating cases dealing with the war powers of the
executive, the Supreme Court has a tendency to answer questions
limiting individual liberties in terms of the separation of powers
rather than the language found in the Bill of Rights. This article
proposes that the lower courts also address such cases using the
language found in the separation of powers, as best exemplified in
Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet
& Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Looking at electronic surveillance in regard
to national security post-Katz v. United States up to and including
cases that emerged from the USA PATRIOT Act amendments to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Terrorist
Surveillance Program, we show how one issue-area that began in
Jackson's zone of twilight emerged to a congressional legislative
scheme that governs the lower courts in a way that the Fourth
Amendment does not. This research reiterates that the
requirements of probable cause and reasonableness required by the
Fourth Amendment meets lower standards in cases dealing
with national security and at times can be forgotten altogether in
favor of statutory interpretation.
The Supreme Courts of Canada and the US have both adjudicated cases concerning the rights claims ... more The Supreme Courts of Canada and the US have both adjudicated cases concerning the rights claims of suspected terrorists. While the Canadian Supreme Court adjudicates these cases asking whether the government actions violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the US Supreme Court, in the American tradition, does not look to its Bill of Rights for
answers, but rather adjudicates such claims based on a separation of powers framework. This article examines the judicially-created reasoning used to decide security cases in a post-9/11 world in Canada and the United States. I show that while the Canadian experience looks like it is more rights-based, the Canadian Supreme Court, like its
American counterpart, looks at the procedure of how the law goes about limiting rights over the substance of the legitimacy of the limit in the first place. I conclude that the two courts end up using similar legal reasoning, despite differing approaches, resulting in each state providing a delicate balance between security and liberty.
American Foreign Policy by Amanda DiPaolo
Papers by Amanda DiPaolo
Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television
Abstract will be provided by author.
Encyclopedia of Modern Political Thought, 2013
Armed Forces & Society - ARMED FORCES SOC, 2009
Armed Forces & Society, 2005
Uploads
Television Studies by Amanda DiPaolo
Constitutional Law by Amanda DiPaolo
executive, the Supreme Court has a tendency to answer questions
limiting individual liberties in terms of the separation of powers
rather than the language found in the Bill of Rights. This article
proposes that the lower courts also address such cases using the
language found in the separation of powers, as best exemplified in
Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet
& Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Looking at electronic surveillance in regard
to national security post-Katz v. United States up to and including
cases that emerged from the USA PATRIOT Act amendments to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Terrorist
Surveillance Program, we show how one issue-area that began in
Jackson's zone of twilight emerged to a congressional legislative
scheme that governs the lower courts in a way that the Fourth
Amendment does not. This research reiterates that the
requirements of probable cause and reasonableness required by the
Fourth Amendment meets lower standards in cases dealing
with national security and at times can be forgotten altogether in
favor of statutory interpretation.
answers, but rather adjudicates such claims based on a separation of powers framework. This article examines the judicially-created reasoning used to decide security cases in a post-9/11 world in Canada and the United States. I show that while the Canadian experience looks like it is more rights-based, the Canadian Supreme Court, like its
American counterpart, looks at the procedure of how the law goes about limiting rights over the substance of the legitimacy of the limit in the first place. I conclude that the two courts end up using similar legal reasoning, despite differing approaches, resulting in each state providing a delicate balance between security and liberty.
American Foreign Policy by Amanda DiPaolo
Papers by Amanda DiPaolo
executive, the Supreme Court has a tendency to answer questions
limiting individual liberties in terms of the separation of powers
rather than the language found in the Bill of Rights. This article
proposes that the lower courts also address such cases using the
language found in the separation of powers, as best exemplified in
Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet
& Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Looking at electronic surveillance in regard
to national security post-Katz v. United States up to and including
cases that emerged from the USA PATRIOT Act amendments to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Terrorist
Surveillance Program, we show how one issue-area that began in
Jackson's zone of twilight emerged to a congressional legislative
scheme that governs the lower courts in a way that the Fourth
Amendment does not. This research reiterates that the
requirements of probable cause and reasonableness required by the
Fourth Amendment meets lower standards in cases dealing
with national security and at times can be forgotten altogether in
favor of statutory interpretation.
answers, but rather adjudicates such claims based on a separation of powers framework. This article examines the judicially-created reasoning used to decide security cases in a post-9/11 world in Canada and the United States. I show that while the Canadian experience looks like it is more rights-based, the Canadian Supreme Court, like its
American counterpart, looks at the procedure of how the law goes about limiting rights over the substance of the legitimacy of the limit in the first place. I conclude that the two courts end up using similar legal reasoning, despite differing approaches, resulting in each state providing a delicate balance between security and liberty.