Download Full Volume - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.41ApPENDIX 135Table ALogistic Regression ResultsFirst Time Bar Passage Rate<strong>UDC</strong>-DCSL2003-2008VariablesUndergradGPAOddsRatio95%0.6396 0.2543LSAT Score 1.1389 1.0416Took EssayWriting Class2.5779 1.0046<strong>UDC</strong>-DCSLCumulative 12.1973 1.8122GPACONSTANT * *C.I.Coefficient1.6084 -0.4471.2452 0.13016.6147 0.94782.0984 2.5012* -25.6476Bold indicates statistically significant variablesS. E.z- p-Statistic Value0.4705 -0.9499 0.34220.0455 2.8554 0.00430.4808 1.9696 0.04890.9728 2.5711 0.01016.8815 -3.727 0.0002Convergence:ConvergedIterations: 5Final -2*Log-Likelihood: 165.3746Cases included: 144TestStatisticScore 25.9764Likelihood Ratio 28.7725D.F. P-Value4 04 0135 A logistical regression analysis underscored earlier findings of the importance of the barskills program. As of this writing it is the first study of bar passage programs to illustrate the resultsthrough a logistical regression analysis. Our study has indicated that bar preparation programs cancontribute to overall passage and contribute to the empirical research of the efficacy of suchprograms.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. THE 50 STATES:A 21st CENTURY LAWSUIT TO REMEDYAN 18th CENTURY INJUSTICETimothy Cooper*INTRODUcnONFor 190 years, resourceful residents of the District of Columbia ("D.C."), bothindignant because Congress and state legislatures have failed to pass the necessarylegislation to grant them equal representation in the U.S. Congress, and humiliatedby Congress' plenary authority over them, have attempted withoutsuccess to adjudicate an effective legal remedy to win equal rights under the law.Their inventive yet doomed challenges have claimed that the U.S. Constitution,which circumscribes their fundamental rights by granting representation only tothe "people of the several states," is unconstitutional, arguing, among otherthings, that the denial of equal congressional representation violates the politicalprinciple of no taxation without representation; infringes on their right to EqualProtection under the 5th and 14th Amendments; and contravenes their right to arepublican form of government under Article 4. Thus, U.S. courts have left theDistrict of Columbia without legal recourse to overturn a 210-year-old injustice,permitting a subversion of its residents' natural rights, and in the prescient wordsof Rep. John Smilie prior to the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, which servedto officially disenfranchise them, made any who lived in the District "not a citizen,but a subject."·As unsympathetic as U.S. courts have been to the District's legal challenges,the District's fortunes have faired considerably better before the world's leadinghuman rights monitoring institutions charged with monitoring u.S. compliancewith its own human rights obligations under international law. In fact, so sympathetichave these rights-monitoring institutions been that they have unanimouslydeclared the denial of voting rights to the District as an international humanrights violation, and called on the United States to remedy this abuse by adoptingsuch legislation as may be necessary to grant them equal rights under the U.S.Constitution. The fact that official U.S. policy toward the residents of its owncapital city has been found to violate internationally recognized human rightsstandards should be sufficient inducement for the national government to forcefullyact, but it hasn't, which reaffirms the widespread notion that the United* To Frank Karel and Jim Gray, who reached for the impossible, and to all the true believersyouknow exactly who you are. And for Jo, Ian, Arran, and Dylan, who contributed in ways tooinnumerable to count and too significant to summarize.1 6 ANNAl_'i OF CONGo 997 (1801). available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lIac&fileName=01 OlllacO 1 O.db&recN um=496.
Page 2: University of the District of Colum
Page 6 and 7: University of the District of Colum
Page 8 and 9: 2 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRWr OF COL
Page 10 and 11: 4 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 12 and 13: 6 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTIUcr OF CO
Page 14 and 15: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. UNIVERSIT
Page 16 and 17: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 11In resp
Page 18 and 19: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 13uated f
Page 20 and 21: YES WE CAN. PASS THE BAR.The Univer
Page 22 and 23: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 17C. Iden
Page 24 and 25: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 19The Pro
Page 26 and 27: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 21Accordi
Page 28 and 29: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 23calcula
Page 30 and 31: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 25The Ame
Page 32 and 33: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.ing the su
Page 34 and 35: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 29writing
Page 36 and 37: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 31tion, s
Page 38 and 39: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 33activit
Page 40 and 41: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.35Table 2B
Page 42 and 43: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR.37Table 5B
Page 44 and 45: YES WE CAN, PASS THE BAR. 39(X 2 =4
Page 48 and 49: 44 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF C
Page 50 and 51: 46 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF C
Page 52 and 53: 48 UNIVEI~SITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 54 and 55: 50 UNIVm~SITY OF TilE DISTRICr (W C
Page 56 and 57: 52 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTIUCr OF CO
Page 58 and 59: 54 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICI' OF
Page 60 and 61: 56 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF C
Page 62 and 63: 58 UNIVEI~SITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF
Page 68 and 69: 64 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 70 and 71: 66 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICI' OF
Page 72 and 73: 68 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF C
Page 74 and 75: 70 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 76 and 77: 72 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 80 and 81: 76 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF C
Page 82 and 83: 78 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICI" OF
Page 84 and 85: 80 UNIVERSUY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 86 and 87: 82 UNIVERsrrv OF TilE DISTRICT OF C
Page 88 and 89: 84 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF C
Page 90 and 91: 86 UNIVEHSITY OF TIlE DISTHICr OF C
Page 92 and 93: 88 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE Disnucl' OF C
Page 96 and 97:
92 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DIS"IlUcr OF
Page 98 and 99:
94 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF C
Page 100 and 101:
96 UNIVERSITY OF TI IE DISTRICr OF
Page 102 and 103:
98 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF C
Page 104 and 105:
100 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
104 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICr OF
Page 110 and 111:
106 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTIUCr OF C
Page 112 and 113:
108 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF C
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
112 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF C
Page 118 and 119:
A DISCUSSION ON THE DISTRICT OF COL
Page 120 and 121:
IGNORING THE LAW FOR EXPEDIENCY'S S
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
134 UNIVEI{SITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 138 and 139:
136 UNIVEI~SITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF
Page 140 and 141:
138 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 142 and 143:
140 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRIC(, OF
Page 144 and 145:
142 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICf OF
Page 146 and 147:
144 UNIVEHSITY OF TI IE DISTRICT OF
Page 148 and 149:
146 UNIVEI~SITY OF TIlE DISTRICr OF
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
152 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT OF
Page 156 and 157:
154 UNIVEI~SITY OF THE DlsTRlcr OF
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
158 UNIVEH.srrv OF THE DISTRICr OF
Page 162 and 163:
160 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTIUcr OF
Page 164 and 165:
162 UNIVERSITY OF TilE Dls'nucr OF
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
166 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF C
Page 170 and 171:
168 UNIVERSfrY OF HIE DISTRICr OF C
Page 172 and 173:
170 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICt' OF
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
174 UNIVEI{SITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
178 UNIVEltSl'l'V OF THE DISTIUCI'
Page 182 and 183:
180 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTRICT (W
Page 184 and 185:
182 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICT OF
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
188 UNIVERSITY OF TilE DISTRICt' OF
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
JURISPRUDENCE FOR A DIGITAL AGE: FR
Page 196 and 197:
JURISPRUDENCE FOR A DIGITAL AGE 195
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
THE CHILD ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
THE CHILD ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECfION
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS:A CASE A
Page 228 and 229:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 227under
Page 230 and 231:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 229ual,
Page 232 and 233:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 231Day c
Page 234 and 235:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 233who,
Page 236 and 237:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 235sions
Page 238 and 239:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 237Omars
Page 240 and 241:
THE RUCKUS IN THE CAUCASUS 239ment.
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
244 UNIVERSfl"Y OF TIlE DISTRICT OF
Page 246 and 247:
246 UNIVI ~ I(SITY 01 ' TI l E DIST
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
256 UNIVERSITY OF nlE DIS'IlUCT OF
Page 258 and 259:
258 UNIVERSITY OF TIlE DISTIUcr OF
Page 260:
show all

Download Full Volume - UDC Law Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?