Yo dogs. I'm starting an undergraduate law review at CMC. Basically, it's a journal that publishes a small number of longish papers on legal scholarship written by undergraduates all over the country. And since this site consists almost exclusively of smart, driven undergraduates from all over the country, I figured I'd invite anyone here who might want to contribute to do so.

Getting a paper published in such a journal is not only a unique and attractive thing to put on a law school application, but an exceptional opportunity to participate in a forum of legal scholarship. The papers can be about pretty much anything under the umbrella of law (UW's analogous law review has some good examples: http://students.washington.edu/wulr/ ). So, if you'd like to write a paper, whether you have an idea of what you'd want to write or not, please reply to the thread, or hit me up via PM, facebook, or email.

I would be very interested in this sometime in the next semester.

^ That.

Nah

http://cmulr.blogspot.com/

it's up! and features an article from our very own Research Monkey.

Sure I would be interested, although I can't see the blog right now thanks to the Great Firewall of China.

Wish I could talk about law... if I ever take a class or something, it'd be awesome to contribute.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there some congressional action taken to avoid methods of corruption in federal elections like voter intimidation more than a century ago? Or does that not count as corruption?
Other than that, very impressive, Ian.

Intimidation doesn't really count as corruption the way it actually existed in the United States (or at least, how it existed to the extent that Congress sought to legislate it). It was mostly just racism.



Yarbrough was 1884 but wasn't upholding legislation, it was enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment.

Bourroughs upholding the FCPA (1925) was pretty much the start of it all.

I was actually referring to managers of big factories using voter intimidation to help ensure that the politicians in their pocket got elected, not so much the antebellum stuff you got in the South.

I think you mean post-war, not antebellum, but I'm unaware of the legislative history that you're referring to. Do you have a link to that?

Hah yeah, that one. Meant parabellum, I was tired last night. I'm not sure what the legislation was, I just remember a brief mention of it in AP US history three years ago.

I would love to, but my expertise lies more in international politics and government more than anything, which doesn't seem terribly relevant to a law review.

I think you meant "postbellum"

Parabellum is a type of ammo...

I give up

*rises from grave*

Incredibly impressive effort.

One of these days, I might think about doing something for tax law.

)bump for subscription)

woah.