This paper examines private military companies' potential liability under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS") for human rights abuses committed abroad while under contract with the U.S. government. Following a review of the existing literature and relevant case law, I conclude that private military companies ("PMCs") may indeed be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute.  Furthermore, after analyzing the arguments for and against ATS liability and the continued use of PMCs in high-risk situations, I argue that the U.S. government should scale back its reliance on PMCs in situations where private individuals are likely to incur ATS liability.

The piece examines the level of faith and credit for executive documents (such as birth certificates) required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. While the Supreme Court has fairly clearly explained "how much" faith and credit states must give to the judgments and statutes of their sister states, it has never clearly explained how much faith and credit states must give to the executive documents of their sister states. The author argues that some executive documents, particularly those that establish issues of status or identity, deserve a high level of faith and credit akin to that enjoyed by judgments. The piece uses a Kansas Supreme Court case, In the Matter of the Estate of Gardiner, to illustrate the unconstitutionality of a state court's refusal to extend faith and credit to a sister state's executive document. In Gardiner, J'Noel Gardiner, a transsexual person, underwent sex reassignment surgery to become a woman. In her home state of Wisconsin, she received an amended birth certificate reflecting her new sex. She later married a biological male in Kansas, but the Kansas courts, considering itself unbound by the Wisconsin birth certificate, invalidated the marriage after determining that as a matter of Kansas law, J'Noel remained male.

There have been fewer executions in California than deaths by lightning strike. But what does the death penalty have to do with lightning? The comparison is drawn from the analysis in the landmark capital punishment case, Furman v. Georgia, which held capital punishment at the time to be unconstitutional. That analysis, now mostly relegated to sound bite status, suggests that California's capital punishment system is unconstitutional. In Furman, Justice Stewart compared being sentenced to death with getting struck by lightning, in the sense that sentencing was both arbitrary and capricious. The Furman court noted that this was not acceptable because it meant that capital punishment could not serve the legitimizing penal purposes of deterrence and retribution. Now once inmates have been sentenced to death in California, executions are so infrequent that comparison with lightning is generous. Because the execution rate in California is so low, sentencing does not correspond to the actual imposition of the death penalty. Only 13 inmates have been executed since 1978. There are currently 677 on death row. This paper aims to show that as a result of a low execution rate and inmate death row stays averaging around 17 years and growing, capital punishment in California is no longer more retributive or deterrent than the punishment of life without parole. As such, it is excessive and violates the Eighth Amendment. Part I introduces the subject in context with other developments in capital punishment. Part II addresses different theories of retribution and deterrence and defines retribution and deterrence in the context of capital punishment and this paper. Part II also illustrates why retribution and deterrence are essential elements to a constitutional capital punishment scheme. Part III argues that the delay in California between judgment and executions frustrates the furtherance of retribution and deterrence. Part IV focuses on the low number of executions in California and why this prevents retribution and deterrence. Part V discusses potential solutions to California's capital punishment problem. Finally, Part VI summarizes key points from the paper.

In recent years, wind energy production has expanded exponentially in the United States. With this staggering growth of wind power in areas both rural and urban, neighboring property-owners have become more vocal in their opposition to the construction of new wind turbines. This comment analyses the current body of case law on nuisance lawsuits against wind power developments, in light of the historical development of nuisance law. Starting with Roman law and tracing nuisance law through its present state in the United States, the comment formulates an argument as to how nuisance law should be applied to wind turbines. The comment then considers the cases that have considered this issue, assessing them in view of the original purposes underlying nuisance law. The comment also advances the point that one of the most fully-reasoned decisions on the issue, a West Virginia Supreme Court case from 2007, threatens to undermine the legal and policy underpinnings of nuisance law while impeding the future development of wind energy in the United States.

This review essay considers the state of hybrid democracy in California through an examination of three worthy books: Daniel Weintraub, Party of One: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of the Independent Voter; Center for Governmental Studies, Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California's Fourth Branch of Government (Second Edition), and Mark Baldassare and Cheryl Katz, The Coming of Age of Direct Democracy: California's Recall and Beyond. The essay concludes that despite the hoopla about Governor Schwarzenegger as a "party of one" and a new age of "hybrid democracy" in California, the pattern in the 2000s appears mostly the same as that of past decades: California voters have occasionally passed important measures through the initiative process, but for the most part public policy in the state continues to be crafted by the state legislature and the governor. The best hope for increased "people power" through the initiative process is for initiative proponents to focus on good government measures that assure a better legislative process, such as open primaries, redistricting reform, and budget reform.

Photo Source: Flickr /victoriabernal