Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Israel Reflections 2013–Is Trust Necessary?

Post author:Andrea K. Schneider
Post published:April 14, 2013
Post category:International Law & Diplomacy Negotiation Public

At the ABA Section on Dispute Resolution Annual Meeting last week, Senator George Mitchell spoke about Northern Ireland and how important hope and patience is for a peace process. On the other hand, and contrary to much that we read about in negotiation, he did not argue that trust is needed. Several of our speakers in Israel spoke about this as well. The following blog from Nick Grode picks up on this theme:

Having returned from Israel, I find myself reflecting on what I have learned. One of the most interesting lessons centers on the role of trust in conflict resolution. While in Israel I had the pleasure of listening to Gershon Baskin [Baskin negotiated the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli solider held by Hamas for five years] and Moty Cristal [Cristal was last year’s ABA keynote speaker, a well-known negotiation expert involved in numerous Israeli-Palestinian issues] speak about the Middle East conflict. Both commented on the lack of trust between the Israeli and Palestinian governments.

Interestingly, neither saw this lack of trust as a bar to peace.

Does Federal Law Actually Preempt Relaxed State Marijuana Laws?

Post author:Scott C. Idleman
Post published:April 9, 2013
Post category:Congress & Congressional Power Constitutional Law Criminal Law & Process Federalism Public Speakers at Marquette

The Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro recently spoke at the Law School concerning the status of relaxed state marijuana laws in light of the federal Controlled Substances Act’s continued prohibition of activities that these state laws now allow. This is a timely question with, it turns out, a less-than-certain answer. More precisely, it demands an answer that is more nuanced, and less categorical, than one might initially be inclined to give.

One’s initial answer is likely that these state laws are preempted—that is, rendered void and unenforceable—because of the federal statute. It is conventional constitutional doctrine, after all, that the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes valid federal law supreme over conflicting state law. Moreover, because the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) deemed the federal marijuana prohibition to be a valid exercise of Congress’ commerce power, the specific question of whether state marijuana laws are vulnerable to preemption seems already to have been answered.

Mr. Shapiro makes an important observation, however.

Conference Sheds Light on New Arena Issue, But Leaves Questions Unanswered

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:April 8, 2013
Post category:Marquette Law School Milwaukee Political Processes & Rhetoric Public Speakers at Marquette

There was a question mark in the title of Monday’s conference at Marquette University Law School: “A New Milwaukee Sports and Entertainment Arena? Divining the Benefits and Dividing the Costs.”

Six hours of presentations offered a lot of serious discussion, a wide range of perspectives, expert input, comparative experiences from other metropolitan areas, and insights into factors involved in the issue. You could even say there was a broad sense of agreement that it will be good for Milwaukee if the Milwaukee Bucks professional basketball team stays in the city, in that no one favored the team leaving.

But the conference didn’t – and, in reality, surely couldn’t – remove any of the formidable question marks that hang over the futures of the BMO Harris Bradley Center, the Bucks, and a possible new sports and entertainment franchise in Milwaukee.