Freedom from Ignorance: the International Duty to Provide Public Education

This paper argues that public education is an international human right that the U.S. ought to recognise and protect. Recognising a right to public education would correct a major inconsistency in U.S. law by bringing education rights docrtine more in line with international human rights law. This piece discusses how current U.S. education rights doctrine is inconsistent with U.S. tradition and legal precedent. It then demonstrates how international law recognises public education as a fundamental duty of government before arguing for why the U.S. is obligated to follow international law regarding the right to public education

Education Rights and the New Due Process

This Article argues for a human dignity-based, due process clause analysis to recognize the fundamental duty of government to provide high quality, public education. Access to public education is a fundamental duty, or positive fundamental right because education is a basic human need and a constituent part of all democratic rights

A Critique of the Uniquely Adversarial Nature of the U.S. Legal, Economic and Political System and its Implications for Reinforcing Existing Power Hierarchies

This article argues that the uniquely adversarial nature of the United States litigation system, rooted in the medieval English system of trial by battle, has replicated itself in almost all aspects of American society, distinguishing the United States from even its common law counterparts that shared the genesis of their legal systems in English trial by battle. This trial by battle is often characterized in the context of speech by terms such as the \u27marketplace of ideas, or in the context of economics by terms such as the law of the jungle., Even resolution of basic Constitutional concepts are subject to battles between parties, rather than a proactive determination by a Constitutional Court as can be found in many other legal systems. Thus, American society is unique from all other industrialized nations in the extent to which it employs adversarial techniques to resolve conflicts in the areas of contract law, criminal law, constitutional law, labor law, and economic and social policy, in addition to its legal system. This article suggests that the implications of this emphasis on procedure over substance are profound, and that the shibboleth of procedural fairness invoked to justify disparate substantive outcomes may be more illusory than real