All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.

Two Treatises of Government.

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

/pdf/current-index-to-legal-periodicals-8re353ze53.pdf

Current index to legal periodicals

Service recovery research remains conflicted in its understanding of consumers' recovery expectations and of why similar goods or service failures may lead to different recovery expectations. The authors argue that this conflict results from the assumption that consumer recovery expectations are monolithic and largely homogeneous, driven mainly by behavioral, relational, or contextual stimuli. Instead, recovery scenarios involving high-involvement (i.e., self-relevant) goods and service failures may activate closely held, identity-related cultural models that, though ultimately applied to regain balance (a foundational schema), differ according to their sociocultural heritage and create a range of unique consumer recovery preferences. The authors empirically identify three embodied cultural models—relational, oppositional, and utilitarian—that consumers apply to goods or service failures. Furthermore, the authors discuss implications for service recovery research and services marketing practice a...

/pdf/a-cultural-models-approach-to-service-recovery-3s0mm95qmg.pdf

A Cultural Models Approach to Service Recovery

/pdf/free-speech-and-its-relation-to-self-government-em0031g29a.pdf

Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271

Executive review : kontrola konstytucyjności prawa przez władzę wykonawczą w Stanach Zjednoczonych

Nation of adversaries: how the litigation explosion is reshaping america

Since 1968, liberalism as a viable political ideology has been under attack, with the most aggressive assault occurring in the 1988 presidential campaign. While conservatives denounced the "L-word" and proclaimed its death as a political ideology, liberals and Democrats failed to defend America's proud liberal tradition. Liberals have yet to take the ideological offensive. Indeed, without a clear ideological identity, it is not surprising that the Democratic Party appears uncertain as to its future political message. In "Liberalism and American identity", Patrick Garry presents a thesis of the meaning and importance of liberalism in American politics. His work attempts to rejuvenate political liberalism, after the devastating attack on it during the 1980s. Presenting a workable definition of liberalism, Garry demonstrates the vital role it has played, and can continue to play, in American history. His examination of the liberal ideology and tradition in American politics reveals not only the nation's liberal identity, but also the conservative tendency to label liberalism "unAmerican" as a means to circumvent discussion of social problems. Garry defines liberalism through historical examples and the beliefs and leadership of prominant Americans, namely Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. He then applies these principles to a discussion of current politics and the problems of crime, poverty, and national defense. Although arguing that the conservative attack during the 1980s greatly misrepresented the American liberal tradition, Garry also acknowledges that changes within accepted liberal doctrines during the 1960s and 1970s led to a deviation of contemporary liberalism from its roots. This betrayal of liberalism and its degeneration into special interest politics, he asserts, caused an identity crisis among liberals and alienated large segments of the American electorate previously supportive of the politics of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

Liberalism and American identity

"Garry convincingly argues that technology and democracy can go hand-in-hand ... (he) does much to make it look as if the FCC regulations are now just about as obsolete as typewriters". Booklist

Scrambling for Protection: The New Media and the First Amendment

Under the modern view, individual autonomy has become the primary, if not exclusive, focus of the Bill of Rights. But the Bill of Rights came about not because of a desire to preserve individual autonomy or to insulate the individual from the democratic community. The impetus for the Bill of Rights arose from the same set of concerns that motivated the original Constitution. These concerns involved creating the appropriate structures so as to keep the new central government in check. The Bill of Rights sought to further ensure that the federal government would have limited power and operate in a limited role. Not only does this limited government model coincide with the original intent underlying the Bill of Rights, but it also provides for a more objective and manageable application. Under an individual autonomy view of the Bill of Rights, courts must define the ingredients necessary for such autonomy. However, this endeavor is fraught with ambiguity, and courts must constantly pit the individual against democratic society. But under the limited government model, the judicial role is more objective. Instead of trying to define an ambiguous individual autonomy, courts simply need to focus on whether a particular right is needed so as to maintain limited government. In addition, the limited government model does not put the Bill of Rights in conflict with democratic society. Instead, it just uses the Bill of Rights to maintain a check on government, just as the original Constitution seeks to do.

/pdf/liberty-through-limits-the-bill-of-rights-as-limited-1l8580n30t.pdf

Liberty through limits: the bill of rights as limited government provisions

In response to the public's request to protect children from the ever growing body of pornographic material available on the Internet, the United States Congress has made a number of legislative attempts "to shield children from Internet smut." In 2000, Congress changed from a prohibition mentality to a filtering mentality, and the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.The filtering requirements of the CIPA present one of the first successful governmental efforts to help parents protect their children from harmful Internet material. However, the lingering issue is whether that filtering effort, as alleged by the CIPA opponents, unduly restricts the free speech rights of adults. A study was designed to determine how often adults were denied access to information at South Dakota public libraries using the federal E-rate program as a filter on library terminals.

Patrick M. Garry

Papers

Nation of adversaries: how the litigation explosion is reshaping america

Liberalism and American identity

Scrambling for Protection: The New Media and the First Amendment

Liberty through limits: the bill of rights as limited government provisions

Does Filtering Stop the Flow of Valuable Information?: A Case Study of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in South Dakota