Search

In the fields of media studies and fan studies, the concept of paratext is an analytical paradigm for understanding how audiences consume and interpret media texts, such as a novel or movie. Amid today's media-rich society, it is all but impossible to encounter a media text in isolation. Rather, we also invariably interact with a wide variety of associated paratexts, from official materials like trailers or marketing to unofficial materials like reviews or fan reactions, which play a role in shaping our interpretation of the core media text. This concept of media paratext provides a compelling analogy for constitutional interpretation. We likewise do not interpret the U.S. Constitution in isolation, but always in association with related texts that inform our understanding of its meaning, such as legal precedent, historical materials, and scholarly work in relevant disciplines. Moreover, in both instances the determination of the meaning of the core text readily can be a contestable and contested endeavor. Ultimately, the comparison between constitutional interpretation and media paratext refutes the proffered objective of originalism by demonstrating the impossibility of any aspiration to sever the interpretation of an iconic text from the full range of paratextual materials that inform our understanding of it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the debate over the U.S. Supreme Court's warrant requirement doctrine under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts. It analyzes how the court used the doctrine in cases concerning electronic surveillance, Internet connectivity, data analytics and other digital technologies. Also discussed is the purpose of the warrant requirement which is to facilitate judicial review of investigative activities of the police.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases Nathaniel Jones v. United States, Apprendi v. New Jersey and Joseph Jones v. United States in which Court unable to bring stability and consistency to the constitutional law of sentencing fact-finding. Topics discussed include foundational requirements of criminal liability, Sixth Amendment right to jury trial and extent of the appropriate punishment.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Jones regarding police authority to use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology for tracking criminal suspects. The Court did not provide guidance about Fourth Amendment implications of GPS surveillance or tracking technologies. The Court held that police investigative tactic are not included in Fourth Amendment searches and preliminary investigation without obtaining a warrant is permissible.

The article discusses the legal aspects of terrorism as defined by the U.S. federal criminal law and the international laws of war. It states that the existing principles and doctrines of the country's federal criminal law as well as the international laws of war cannot fully address the nature of the terrorist threat. It says that one framework at defining the threat of terrorism primarily focused on the prosecution and punishment of individuals for their alleged terrorist activities. Furthermore, it notes that the criminal and military models each provide insights into the nature of the terrorist threat, identifying particular aspects of the problem that most closely resemble their respective paradigms.